Does the Risk of Rerevision Vary Between Porous Tantalum Cups and Other Cementless Designs After Revision Hip Arthroplasty?

Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® - Earlier results with porous tantalum acetabular cups in revision THA generally have been favorable. Recently there has been some evidence...     

Does a Cemented Cage Improve Revision THA for Severe Acetabular Defects?

Background  

Evidence suggests a growing incidence of revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) including a subset with large acetabular defects. Revision THA for severe acetabular bone loss is associated with a relatively high rate of mechanical failure.     

Does Aseptic Revision Risk Differ for Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty Patients Who Have and Do not Have a Prior Primary or Revision Arthroplasty?

BackgroundWe sought to evaluate the risk of aseptic revision in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) patients who have and do not have a history of primary or revision arthroplasty of a different major joint.MethodsWe conducted a matched cohort study using data from Kaiser Permanente’s arthroplasty registries. Patients who underwent primary unilateral TKA (index knee) were identified (2009-2018). Two matches based on exposure history were performed: (1) 33,714 TKAs with a history of primary arthroplasty of a different joint (contralateral knee, either hip, and/or either shoulder) were matched to 67,121 TKAs without an arthroplasty history and (2) 597 TKAs with a history of aseptic revision in a different joint were matched to 1,190 TKAs with a history of a prior arthroplasty in a different joint, but without any revision. After the matches were performed, Cox regressions were used to evaluate aseptic revision risk of the index knee using the no history groups as the reference in regression models.ResultsNo difference in aseptic revision risk for the index knee was observed when comparing patients who had a prior primary arthroplasty in a different joint to those who did not have an arthroplasty history (hazard ratio = 0.95, 95% CI = 0.86-1.06). Those patients who did not have any prior aseptic revision history in a different joint had higher risk of aseptic revision in the index knee (hazard ratio = 2.06, 95% CI = 1.17-3.63).ConclusionPatients who had a prior revision history had over a 2-fold higher risk of aseptic revision in the index knee, warranting close surveillance of these patients.Level of EvidenceLevel III.     

Does Standing Affect Acetabular Component Inclination and Version After THA?

Background  

Avoiding complications after hip arthroplasty with hard-on-hard bearings, especially metal-on-metal, correlates with the position of the acetabular component. Supine imaging with conventional radiography has traditionally been utilized to assess component inclination (abduction), as well as anteversion, after THA and surface replacement arthroplasty (SRA). However, most adverse events with hard bearings (excessive wear and squeaking) have occurred with loading. Standing imaging, therefore, should provide more appropriate measurements.     

General vs Spinal Anesthesia for Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty: Do Complication Rates Differ?

BackgroundThe incidence of both primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and revision TKA is increasing. Data from primary arthroplasty patients suggest a risk reduction with the use of spinal anesthesia when compared with general anesthesia. However, the same relationship has not been examined in the revision knee arthroplasty patient.MethodsThis is a retrospective cohort study using the American College of Surgeons-National Surgical Quality Improvement database. Patients undergoing revision TKA with either spinal or general anesthesia were identified from the database. Baseline characteristics were compared, and ultimately patients were matched using coarsened exact matching. Multivariate analysis was then performed on matched cohorts controlling for baseline patient and operative characteristics. This model was used to look for any differences in rates of complications, operative time, length of stay, and readmission.ResultsPatients undergoing revision TKA with general anesthesia had increased risk of several postoperative complications, even after controlling for baseline patient characteristics. Specifically, there were significantly increased rates of the following: unplanned readmission (OR = 1.43, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.18-1.72, P < .001), nonhome discharge (OR = 1.60, 95% CI = 1.46-1.76, P < .001), transfusion (OR = 1.63, 95% CI = 1.41-1.88, P < .001), deep surgical site infection (OR = 1.43, 95% CI = 1.01-2.03, P = .043), and extended length of stay (OR = 1.22, 95% CI = 1.11-1.34, P < .001). General anesthesia was additionally associated with increased operative time.ConclusionGeneral anesthesia is associated with increased risk of numerous postoperative complications in patients undergoing revision TKA. This study is retrospective in nature, and while causality cannot be definitively determined, the results suggest that spinal anesthesia is preferential to general anesthesia in the revision TKA patient.     

Are Barbed Sutures Associated With 90-day Reoperation Rates After Primary TKA?

Background

Studies have suggested that barbed sutures for wound closure in TKAs are an acceptable alternative to standard methods. However others have observed a higher risk of wound-related complications with barbed sutures.

Questions/Purposes

(1) Do 90-day TKA reoperation rates differ between patients undergoing a barbed suture arthrotomy closure compared with a traditional interrupted closure? (2) Do the 90-day reoperation rates of wound-related, deep infection, and arthrotomy failure complications differ between barbed suture and traditional closures?

Methods

A retrospective analysis of a longitudinally maintained institutional primary TKA database was conducted on all TKAs performed between April 2011 and September 2015. We compared 884 primary TKAs, where the arthrotomy was closed with a barbed suture, with 1598 primary TKAs closed with the standard interrupted suture. After barbed sutures were introduced at our institution in 2012, the majority of surgeons gradually switched to barbed suture closures, with many using them exclusively by the end of the data collection period. We confirmed in-person followups and available data past 90 days for 97.4% (1556 of 1598) of the knees in patients with standard sutures and 94.8% (838 of 884) of the knees in patients with barbed sutures. Our primary endpoint was all-cause 90-day reoperation; our secondary endpoints considered: wound-related reoperation, as defined by previous studies; deep infection per Musculoskeletal Infection Society guidelines; and arthrotomy failure, defined intraoperatively as an opening or dehiscence through the previous arthrotomy closure. T tests and chi-square analyses were used to determine differences between the suture cohorts, and bivariate logistic regression was used to determine associations with our 90-day reoperation outcomes.

Results

With the numbers available, there was no association between suture type and 90-day all-cause reoperation (odds ratio [OR], 1.70; 95% CI, 0.82–3.53; p = 0.156). Suture type was not associated with wound-related reoperation (OR, 2.73; 95% CI, 0.97–7.69; p = 0.058). A 0.6% (five of 884) arthrotomy failure rate was observed in the barbed cohort while no (0 of 1598) arthrotomy failures were noted in the traditional group (p = 0.003). Deep infections were rare in both groups (two of 884 barbed sutures, 0 of 1598 standard sutures) and could not be compared.

Conclusions

Although we saw no difference in overall and wound-related 90-day reoperation rates by suture type with the numbers available, we observed a higher frequency in our secondary question of arthrotomy failures when barbed sutures are used for arthrotomy closure during TKA. Given the widespread use of this closure technique, our preliminary pilot results warrant further investigation in larger multicenter cohorts.

Level of Evidence

Level III, therapeutic study.

     

Cementless THA for the Treatment of Osteonecrosis at 10-Year Follow-Up: Have We Improved Compared to Cemented THA?

Results of cementless THA for osteonecrosis were evaluated at a minimum of 10-year follow-up and compared to our previous report of cemented THA for osteonecrosis. Eighty cementless THAs in 66 patients with osteonecrosis were followed for a minimum of 10 years. Evaluation consisted of need for revision; radiographic evidence of loosening, wear and osteolysis; activity monitoring with an accelerometer; UCLA, Tegner, WOMAC, and Harris hip scores. Results were compared to 48 cemented THAs performed for osteonecrosis with comparable follow-up. At a minimum of 10 years, 10 hips required reoperation. Loosening and revision for loosening were significantly lower in the cementless group compared to the cemented historical control. Cementless fixation in THAs for osteonecrosis demonstrated durable results with bearing surface wear being the major long-term problem.     

Do Mortality and Complication Rates Differ Between Periprosthetic and Native Hip Fractures?

Background

Epidemiological estimates indicate a rising incidence of periprosthetic hip fractures. While native hip fractures are known to be a highly morbid condition, a significant body of research has led to improved outcomes and decreased complications following these injuries. Comparatively, little research has evaluated the relative morbidity and mortality of periprosthetic hip fractures. The purpose of this study was to compare the morbidity and mortality of periprosthetic vs native hip fractures.

Do Complication Rates Differ by Gender After Metal-on-metal Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty? A Systematic Review

Background

Although metal-on-metal (MoM) bearing surfaces provide low rates of volumetric wear and increased stability, evidence suggests that certain MoM hip arthroplasties have high rates of complication and failure. Some evidence indicates that women have higher rates of failure compared with men; however, the orthopaedic literature as a whole has poorly reported such complications stratified by gender.

Questions/purposes

This systematic review aimed to: (1) compare the rate of adverse local tissue reaction (ALTR); (2) dislocation; (3) aseptic loosening; and (4) revision between men and women undergoing primary MoM hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA).

Methods

Systematic MEDLINE and EMBASE searches identified all level I to III articles published in peer-reviewed journals, reporting on the outcomes of interest, for MoM HRA. Articles were limited to those with 2-year followup that reported outcomes by gender. Ten articles met inclusion criteria. Study quality was evaluated using the Modified Coleman Methodology Score; the overall quality was poor. Heterogeneity and bias were analyzed using a Mantel-Haenszel statistical method.

Results

Women demonstrated an increased odds of developing ALTR (odds ratio [OR], 5.70 [2.71–11.98]; p < 0.001), dislocation (OR, 3.04 [1.2–7.5], p = 0.02), aseptic loosening (OR, 3.18 [2.21–4.58], p < 0.001), and revision (OR, 2.50 [2.25–2.78], p < 0.001) after primary MoM HRA.

Conclusions

A systematic review of the currently available literature reveals a higher rate of complications (ALTR, dislocation, aseptic loosening, and revision) after MoM HRA in women compared with men. Although femoral head size has been frequently implicated as a prime factor in the higher rate of complication in women, further research is necessary to specifically probe this relationship. Retrospective studies of data available (eg, registry data) should be undertaken, and moving forward studies should report outcomes by gender (particularly complications).

Level of Evidence

Level III, therapeutic study.     

What is the Rate of Revision Discectomies After Primary Discectomy on a National Scale?

Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® - Lumbar discectomy has been shown to be clinically beneficial in numerous studies for appropriately selected patients. Some patients, however,...     

Do High-Flexion Total Knee Designs Increase the Risk of Femoral Component Loosening?

Background

The purpose of our prospective, randomized, long-term investigation is to compare the aseptic loosening rate of the femoral component of the total knee prosthesis and clinical and radiographic results of high-flexion posterior cruciate-substituting knee prosthesis or standard posterior cruciate-substituting knee prosthesis in the same patients.

What Works Best,a Cemented or Cementless Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty?: Minimum 17-year Followup of a Randomized Controlled Trial

Background  

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) has been associated with high survival rates, but debate remains concerning the best fixation mode of THA.     

Do Tissues From THA Revision of Highly Crosslinked UHMWPE Liners Contain Wear Debris and Associated Inflammation?

Background  

Polyethylene wear debris is a major contributor to inflammation and the development of implant loosening, a leading cause of THA revisions. To reduce wear debris, highly crosslinked ultrahigh-molecular-weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) was introduced to improve wear properties of bearing surfaces. As highly crosslinked UHMWPE revision tissues are only now becoming available, it is possible to examine the presence and association of wear debris with inflammation in early implant loosening.     

Do Alumina Matrix Composite Bearings Decrease Hip Noises and Bearing Fractures at a Minimum of 5 Years After THA?

Background

Ceramic-on-ceramic bearing couples are theoretically attractive in total hip arthroplasty (THA) because of low wear, but concerns regarding ceramic fracture and squeaking have arisen. Improved material properties of newer alumina matrix composite (AMC) materials, known as Delta ceramics, may reduce these risks. In addition, the use of thinner liners and larger femoral heads may be helpful clinically to lower the rate of dislocation. However, limited short-term clinical results are available and intermediate-term effects are unclear.

Questions/purposes

(1) What is the frequency of bearing-related complications (dissociation, fracture, and noise) with ceramic-on-ceramic AMC bearings in cementless THA? (2) What other complications arose in patients treated with these bearings? (3) What are the Harris hip scores (HHS) and survivorship free from reoperation and revision at a minimum of 5 years after cementless THA performed with AMC bearings?

Methods

Over a 9-month period in 2009, one surgeon performed 125 THAs, of which 100 (80% of the total) were performed with cementless, AMC bearings. During the period in question, the exclusion criteria for this implant were primary THAs with severe acetabular or femoral bone defect and revision THAs. Of these, 94 hips (95%) in 91 patients were available for analysis at a minimum of 5 years (range, 5–6 years), because five patients (six hips) had died. Mean age at the time of arthroplasty was 55 ± 14 years. Prostheses with an identical design and Biolox^® Delta ceramics were used in all patients. Noise was classified into squeaking, clicking, grinding, and popping. Ceramic fracture, dislocation, and any other complications associated with the use of AMC ceramics were also investigated. Clinical evaluation included the modified HHS preoperatively and at each followup. Survivorship free from reoperation and revision was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method.

Results

Of 91 patients, four developed bearing-related complications, including one with liner dissociation despite initial square seating and three with clicking. No patients had ceramic fractures. A single event of perioperative dislocation occurred in one patient and postoperative periprosthetic fracture occurred in two hips. Mean HHS improved from 56 to 93 points at the final followup (p < 0.001). Survivorship at 5 years free from reoperation and revision was 96.8% and 97.9%, respectively.

Conclusions

Improved material properties combined with the possible use of larger diameter heads make AMC ceramics a promising alternative bearing option with seemingly comparable clinical outcomes reported by others with conventional ceramic bearings. Despite these encouraging results, however, meticulous technical precautions such as square seating and proper impaction in particular should be taken during liner insertion, because we did observe one liner dissociation and several patients with hip noises.

Level of Evidence

Level IV, therapeutic study.     

How Do Acetabular Version and Femoral Head Coverage Change With Skeletal Maturity?

BackgroundNormal changes in acetabular version over the course of skeletal development have not been well characterized. Knowledge of normal version development is important because acetabular retroversion has been implicated in several pathologic hip processes.Questions/purposesThe purpose of this study was to characterize the orientation of the acetabulum by measuring (1) acetabular version and (2) acetabular sector angles in pediatric patients during development. We also sought to determine whether these parameters vary by sex in the developing child.MethodsWe evaluated CT images of 200 hips in 100 asymptomatic pediatric patients (45 boys, 55 girls; mean age, 13.5 years; range, 9–18 years) stratified by the status of the triradiate physis and sex. We determined the acetabular anteversion angle at various levels in the axial plane as well as acetabular sector angles at five radial planes around the acetabulum.ResultsFor both genders, anteversion angle was greater for the closed physis group throughout all levels (p < 0.001) and both open and closed physis groups were more anteverted as the cut moved caudally away from the acetabular roof (p < 0.001). At the center of the femoral head, the mean anteversion angle (± SD) in girls was 15° ± 3° in the open group and 19° ± 5° in the closed group (p < 0.001). In boys, the mean anteversion angle increased from 14° ± 4° in the open group to 19° ± 4° in the closed group (p = 0.003). In the superior, posterosuperior, and posterior planes, the acetabular sector angles were greater in the closed compared with the open physis group for both boys and girls with the largest increase occurring in the male posterosuperior plane (approximately 20°) (all p < 0.05).ConclusionsThis study demonstrates that acetabular anteversion and acetabular sector angles in both male and female subjects increase with skeletal maturity as a result of growth of the posterior wall. This suggests that radiographic appearance of acetabular retroversion may not be attributable to overgrowth of the anterior wall but rather insufficient growth of the posterior wall, which has clinical treatment implications for pincer-type impingement.

Level of Evidence

Level IV diagnostic study.     

Is Conversion TKA a Primary or Revision? Clinical Course and Complication Risks Approximating Revision TKA Rather Than Primary TKA

BackgroundConversion total knee arthroplasty (convTKA) is associated with increased resource utilization and costs compared with primary TKA. The purpose of this study is to compare 1) surgical time, 2) hospitalization length (LOS), 3) complications, 4) infection, and 5) readmissions in patients undergoing convTKA to both primary TKA and revision TKA patients.MethodsThe American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Project database was queried from 2008 to 2018. Patients undergoing convTKA (n = 1,665, 0.5%) were defined by selecting Current Procedural Terminology codes 27,447 and 20,680. We compared the outcomes of interest to patients undergoing primary TKA (n = 348,624) and to patients undergoing aseptic revision TKA (n = 8213). Univariate and multivariate logistic regression was performed to identify the relative risk of postoperative complications.ResultsCompared with patients undergoing primary TKA, convTKA patients were younger (P < .001), had lower body mass index (P < .001), and were less likely to be American Society of Anesthesiologist class III/IV (P < .001). These patients had significantly longer operative times (122.6 vs 90.3 min, P < .001), increased LOS (P < .001), increased risks for any complication (OR 1.94), surgical site infection (OR 1.84), reoperation (OR 2.18), and readmissions (OR 1.60) after controlling for confounders. Compared with aseptic TKA revisions, operative times were shorter (122.6 vs 148.2 min, P < .001), but LOS (2.91 vs 2.95 days, P = .698) was similar. Furthermore, relative risk for any complication (P = .350), surgical site infection (P = .964), reoperation (P = .296), and readmissions (P = .844) did not differ.ConclusionConversion TKA procedures share more similarities with revision TKA rather than primary TKA procedures. Without a distinct procedural and diagnosis-related group, there are financial disincentives to care for these complex patients.Level of EvidenceII.     

Does a Monoblock Acetabular Component With a Ceramic Liner Cause More Pelvic Bone Loss Than a Conventional Modular Cementless Acetabular Component? A 2-Year Randomized Clinical Trial

BackgroundCeramic-on-ceramic bearings permit the use of large femoral head size while maintaining a favorable effect on wear rates. However, because of increased device rigidity, periprosthetic bone quality could be negatively affected due to stress shielding. The purpose of this study is to assess pelvic periprosthetic bone remodeling around a monoblock ceramic-on-ceramic acetabular component compared to that around a conventional modular metal-on-polyethylene device.MethodsParticipants were randomized to receive hip replacement using either a porous-coated, modular metal-on-polyethylene acetabular component (n = 46) or a hydroxyapatite and titanium-coated monoblock shell with an integrated ceramic-on-ceramic bearing (n = 40). Radiographic assessments were completed preoperatively and postoperatively, and measurements of bone mineral density (BMD) using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry with region free analysis were performed postoperatively and over 2-years of follow-up.ResultsThere was no significant difference in BMD between the 2 groups at baseline or over the following 2 years. At follow-up, complete shell-to-bone contact without a radiolucent line was observed in 26 (67%) of the modular devices and in 37 (93%) of monoblock (P < .001). The modular device was an independent predictor of radiolucent lines (odds ratio 19.1, P = .007). No cases underwent revision surgery for acetabular loosening.ConclusionBoth the porous-coated modular and hydroxyapatite-coated monoblock acetabular components showed successful clinical results at short-term follow-up with no difference in pixel-level BMD. Using a large head monoblock device does not appear to be associated with an adverse effect on the local bone environment when compared to a modular device.NCTNCT01558752.