What Are the Causes of Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty in Japan?

Background

There is limited information regarding the cause of revision TKA in Asia, especially Japan. Owing to differences in patient backgrounds and lifestyles, the modes of TKA failures in Asia may differ from those in Western countries.

Questions/purposes

We therefore determined (1) causes of revision TKA in a cohort of Japanese patients with revision TKA and (2) whether patient demographic features and underlying diagnosis of primary TKA are associated with the causes of revision TKA.

Methods

We assessed all revision TKA procedures performed at five major centers in Hokkaido from 2006 to 2011 for the causes of failures. Demographic data and underlying diagnosis for index primary TKA of the revision cases were compared to those of randomly selected primary TKAs during the same period.

Results

One hundred forty revision TKAs and 4047 primary TKAs were performed at the five centers, indicating a revision burden of 3.3%. The most common cause of revision TKA was mechanical loosening (40%) followed by infection (24%), wear/osteolysis (9%), instability (9%), implant failure (6%), periprosthetic fracture (4%), and other reasons (8%). The mean age of patients with periprosthetic fracture was older (77 versus 72 years) and the male proportion in patients with infection was higher (33% versus 19%) than those of patients in the primary TKA group. There was no difference in BMI between primary TKAs and any type of revision TKA except other causes.

Conclusions

The revision burden at the five referral centers in Hokkaido was 3.3%, and the most common cause of revision TKA was mechanical loosening followed by infection. Demographic data such as age and sex might be associated with particular causes of revision TKA.     

Does Ischial Screw Fixation Improve Mechanical Stability in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty?

Ischial screw fixation, albeit technically challenging, is postulated to provide additional mechanical stability in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). Hemipelvis specimens were prepared to simulate revision THA, and an acetabular component with supplemental screw fixation was implanted. Three configurations were tested: 2 dome screws alone, 2 dome screws plus an additional screw within the dome, and 2 dome screws plus an ischial screw. Force displacement data were acquired during mechanical testing. An increase in mechanical stability was observed in acetabular components with supplemental screw fixation into either the posterior column or ischium (P ≤ .031) compared to isolated dome fixation. In addition, supplemental ischial screw fixation may provide a modest advantage over a screw placed posteroinferiorly within the acetabular dome during revision THA.     

What Are the Indications for Implant Revision in Three-component Total Ankle Arthroplasty?

BackgroundGiven the increasing usage of total ankle arthroplasty (TAA), a better understanding of the reasons leading to implant revision and the factors that might influence those indications is necessary to identify at-risk patients.Question/purposesUsing a single-design three-component ankle prosthesis, we asked: (1) What is the cumulative incidence of implant revision at 5 and 10 years? (2) What are the indications for implant revision in our population? (3) What factors are associated with an increased likelihood of implant revision during the time frame in question?MethodsBetween 2003 and 2017, primary TAA using a single-design three-component ankle implant was performed by or under the supervision of the implant designer in 1006 patients (1074 ankles) aged between 17 and 88 years to treat end-stage ankle osteoarthritis. No other TAA systems were used during the study period at the investigators’ institution. In 68 patients with bilateral surgery, only the first TAA was considered. Of the patients treated with the study implant, 2% (16 of 1006) were lost to follow-up 5 to 14 years after TAA and were not known to have died or undergone revision, and 5% (55 of 1006) were deceased due to reasons unrelated to the procedure, leaving 935 patients for evaluation in this retrospective study. The mean (range) follow-up for the included patients was 8.8 ± 4.2 (0.2 to 16.8) years. Implant revision was performed 0.5 to 13.2 years after TAA in 12% (121 of 1006) of our patients. Survivorship free from revision was calculated using cumulative incidence (competing risks) survivorship, with death as a competing risk. The reason for each revision was classified into one of six categories according to a modified version of a previously published protocol: aseptic loosening, cyst formation, instability, deep infection, technical error, and pain without another cause. Two foot and ankle surgeons reviewed the records of all patients who underwent implant revision and assigned each patient’s reason for revision to one of the six categories. The decision for assigning each patient to one of the six categories was made based on a consensus agreement. A subgroup classification of preoperative ankle alignment (neutral, mild, and major deformity) and variables of age, sex, BMI, etiology of ankle osteoarthritis, and number of preoperative and intraoperative hindfoot or midfoot procedures were used in a multinomial logistic regression and Cox regression analysis to estimate their association with reason for revision and implant survival until revision.ResultsThe cumulative incidence of implant revision at the mean (range) follow-up time of 8.8 ± 4.2 years (0.2 to 16.8) was 9.8% (95% confidence interval 7.7% to 11.8%). Five and 10 years after TAA, cumulative incidence was 4.8% (95% CI 3.4 to 6.1) and 12.1% (95% CI 9.7% to 14.5%), respectively. The most common reason for revision was instability (34% [41 of 121]), followed by aseptic loosening of one or more metallic components (28% [34 of 121]), pain without another cause (12% [14 of 121]), cyst formation (10% [12 of 121]), deep infection (9% [11 of 121]), and technical error (7% [9 of 121]). Ankles with a major hindfoot deformity before TAA were more likely to undergo revision than ankles with a minor deformity (hazard ratio 1.9 [95% CI 1.2 to 3.0]; p = 0.007) or neutral alignment (HR 2.5 [95% CI 1.5 to 4.4]; p = 0.001). A preoperative hindfoot valgus deformity increased revision probability compared with a varus deformity (HR 2.1 [95% CI 1.4 to 3.4]; p = 0.001).ConclusionInstability was a more common reason for implant revision after TAA with this three-component design than previously reported. All causes inducing either a varus or valgus hindfoot deformity must be meticulously addressed during TAA to prevent revision of this implant. Future studies from surgeons/institutions not involved in this implant design are needed to confirm these findings and to further investigate why a substantial number of patients had pain of unknown cause prompting revision.Level of EvidenceLevel III, therapeutic study.     

Do Porous Tantalum Metaphyseal Cones Improve Outcomes in Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty?

Background

Some authors have advocated for use of porous tantalum metaphyseal cones to manage bone defects during revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The purpose of this study is to compare results with porous metaphyseal cones to results with traditional hybrid stem fixation in revision TKA.

Revision Surgery for Instability After Total Hip Arthroplasty: Does Timing Matter?

BackgroundInstability is a common reason for revision surgery after total hip arthroplasty (THA). Recent studies suggest that revisions performed in the early postoperative period are associated with higher complication rates. The purpose of this study is to assess the effect of timing of revision for instability on subsequent complication rates.MethodsThe Medicare Part A claims database was queried from 2010 to 2017 to identify revision THAs for instability. Patients were divided based on time between index and revision surgeries: <1, 1-2, 2-3, 3-6, 6-9, 9-12, and >12 months. Complication rates were compared between groups using multivariate analyses to adjust for demographics and comorbidities.ResultsOf 445,499 THAs identified, 9298 (2.1%) underwent revision for instability. Revision THA within 3 months had the highest rate of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI): 14.7% at <1 month, 12.7% at 1-2 months, and 10.6% at 2-3 months vs 6.9% at >12 months (P < .001). Adjusting for confounding factors, PJI risk remained elevated at earlier periods: <1 month (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 1.84, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.51-2.23, P < .001), 1-2 months (aOR: 1.45, 95% CI: 1.16-1.82, P = .001), 2-3 months (aOR: 1.35, 95% CI: 1.02-1.78, P = .036). However, revisions performed within 9 months of index surgery had lower rates of subsequent instability than revisions performed >12 months (aOR: 0.67-0.85, P < .050), which may be due to lower rates of acetabular revision and higher rates of head-liner exchange in this later group.ConclusionWhen dislocation occurs in the early postoperative period, delaying revision surgery beyond 3 months from the index procedure may be warranted to reduce risk of PJI.     

How Have Alternative Bearings and Modularity Affected Revision Rates in Total Hip Arthroplasty?

Background

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) continues to be one of the most successful surgical procedures in the medical field. However, over the last two decades, the use of modularity and alternative bearings in THA has become routine. Given the known problems associated with hard-on-hard bearing couples, including taper failures with more modular stem designs, local and systemic effects from metal-on-metal bearings, and fractures with ceramic-on-ceramic bearings, it is not known whether in aggregate the survivorship of these implants is better or worse than the metal-on-polyethylene bearings that they sought to replace.

Questions/purposes

Have alternative bearings (metal-on-metal and ceramic-on-ceramic) and implant modularity decreased revision rates of primary THAs?

Methods

In this systematic review of MEDLINE and EMBASE, we used several Boolean search strings for each topic and surveyed national registry data from English-speaking countries. Clinical research (Level IV or higher) with ≥ 5 years of followup was included; retrieval studies and case reports were excluded. We included registry data at ≥ 7 years followup. A total of 32 studies (and five registry reports) on metal-on-metal, 19 studies (and five registry reports) on ceramic-on-ceramic, and 20 studies (and one registry report) on modular stem designs met inclusion criteria and were evaluated in detail. Insufficient data were available on metal-on-ceramic and ceramic-on-metal implants, and monoblock acetabular designs were evaluated in another recent systematic review so these were not evaluated here.

Results

There was no evidence in the literature that alternative bearings (either metal-on-metal or ceramic-on-ceramic) in THA have decreased revision rates. Registry data, however, showed that large head metal-on-metal implants have lower 7- to 10-year survivorship than do standard bearings. In THA, modular exchangeable femoral neck implants had a lower 10-year survival rate in both literature reviews and in registry data compared with combined registry primary THA implant survivorship.

Conclusions

Despite improvements in implant technology, there is no evidence that alternative bearings or modularity have resulted in decreased THA revision rates after 5 years. In fact, both large head metal-on-metal THA and added modularity may well lower survivorship and should only be used in select cases in which the mission cannot be achieved without it. Based on this experience, followup and/or postmarket surveillance studies should have a duration of at least 5 years before introducing new alternative bearings or modularity on a widespread scale.     

Does An Enhanced Surface Finish Improve Acetabular Fixation in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty?

High-porosity “cancellous metal” coatings have been introduced to increase the fixation and biologic incorporation of acetabular cups. The strength of initial fixation provided by a cancellous metal cups vs conventional alternatives in the deficient revision acetabulum was investigated. Cancellous, plasma-sprayed, and beaded cups (n = 9) were implanted under controlled conditions into a validated model of the revision acetabulum. The greatest differences were seen in resistance to catastrophic (spin-out) failure that, for the cancellous shell, averaged 1076 ± 265 N, which was 25% greater than the plasma-sprayed implant (859 ± 214 N, P = .04) and 218% greater than the beaded implant (338 ± 123 N, P < .01). The cancellous coating also provided greater resistance to ultimate failure. These results suggest that these new cancellous metal coatings may represent a promising alternative for fixation in revision total hip arthroplasty.     

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.     

Do Previous Operative Reports Provide the Critical Information Necessary for Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty?

An operative note is a vital component of a patient's medical-legal record, permitting the surgical team to safely administer perioperative care. Despite this critical function, operative note contents are neither standardized nor regulated; this is especially concerning in orthopedic surgery. As younger patients undergo total hip arthroplasty (THA) and outlive their prostheses, the need for revision THA cannot be ignored. Surgeons performing primary THA must be cognizant to record detailed implant characteristics to ensure that if necessary, the revision surgeon will have all pertinent information to optimally treat the patient. Our survey of operative notes reveals the dismal nature of component documentation during primary THA; implementation of a standardized procedure-specific operative note guideline may minimize incomplete dictations and drive surgeons to include all pertinent information.     

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.     

Revision of Unicompartmental to Total Knee Arthroplasty: Does the Unicompartmental Implant (Metal-Backed vs All-Polyethylene) Impact the Total Knee Arthroplasty?

Background

The aim of this study is to investigate differences in implant requirement, outcomes, and re-revision when total knee arthroplasty (TKA) was performed following unicompartmental knee arthroplasties (UKAs) with metal-backed (MB) compared to all-polyethylene (AP) tibial components.

Single- or Two-stage Revision for Infected Total Hip Arthroplasty? A Systematic Review of the Literature

Background

The best approach for surgical treatment of an infected THA remains controversial. Two-stage revision is believed to result in lower reinfection rates but may result in significant functional impairment. Some authors now suggest that single-stage revision may provide comparable results in terms of infection eradication while providing superior functional outcomes.

Questions/purposes

We performed a systematic review to determine whether single- or two-stage revision for an infected THA provides lower reinfection rates and higher functional outcome scores.

Methods

We conducted a comprehensive search of PubMed and Embase, using the search string [Infection AND (“total hip replacement” OR “total hip arthroplasty”) AND revision]. All studies comparing reinfection rates or functional scores for single- and two-stage revision were retrieved and reviewed. A systematic review was performed according to the PRISMA checklist.

Results

The initial search retrieved 1128 studies. Following strict exclusion criteria, we identified nine comparative studies comparing reinfection rates (all nine studies) or functional scores (four studies) between single- and two-stage revisions. The overall quality of studies was poor with no randomized studies being identified. Groups often varied in their baseline characteristics. There was no consensus among the studies regarding the relative incidence of reinfection between the two procedures. There was a trend toward better functional outcomes in single-stage surgery, but this reached significance in only one study.

Conclusions

In appropriate patients, single-stage revision appears to be associated with similar reinfection rates when compared with two-stage revision with superior functional outcomes. This concurs with earlier studies, but given the methodologic quality of the included studies, these findings should be treated with caution. High-quality randomized studies are needed to compare the two approaches to confirm these findings, and, if appropriate, to determine which patients are appropriate for single-stage revision.     

Are Ceramic-on-ceramic Bearings in Total Hip Arthroplasty Associated With Reduced Revision Risk for Late Dislocation?

Background

Dislocation is a major complication after primary total hip arthroplasty (THA), but little is known about the potential relationships between bearing materials and risk of dislocation. Dislocation within the first year after surgery is typically related to either surgical error or patient inattention to precautions, but the reasons for dislocation after the first year are often unclear, and whether ceramic bearings are associated with an increased or decreased likelihood of late dislocation is controversial.

Questions/purposes

The purpose of this study was to use a national registry to assess whether the choice of bearings–metal-on-polyethylene (MoP), ceramic-on-polyethylene (CoP), ceramic-on-ceramic (CoC), or metal-on-metal (MoM)–is associated with differences in the risk of late dislocation.

Methods

Data from primary THAs were extracted from the New Zealand Joint Registry over a 10-year period. The mean age of patients was 69 years (SD ± 12 years), and 53% were women. The median followup in this population was 7 years (range, 1–13 years). The surgical approach used was posterior in 66% of THAs, lateral in 29%, and anterior in 5%. The primary endpoint was late revision for dislocation with “late” defined as greater than 1 year postoperatively. A total of 73,386 hips were available for analysis: 65% MoP, 17% CoP, 10% CoC, and 7% MoM. In general, patients receiving CoC and MoM bearings were younger compared with patients receiving CoP and MoP bearings.

Results

Four percent of the hips were revised (3130 THAs); 867 THAs were revised for dislocation. Four hundred seventy THAs were revised for dislocation after the first postoperative year. After adjusting for head size, age, and surgical approach, only CoP (hazard ratio [HR], 2.10; p = 0.021) demonstrated a higher proportion of revision, whereas MoP did not (HR, 1.76; 95% p = 0.075). There were no differences of revisions for dislocation in the CoC (HR, 1.60; p = 0.092) and MoM cohorts (HR, 1.54; p = 0.081).

Conclusions

Dislocation is a common reason for revision after THA. The relationships between bearing materials and risk of revision for late dislocation remain controversial. This large registry study demonstrated that bearing surface had little association with the incidence of late dislocation. Future studies with longer followups should continue to investigate this question.

Level of Evidence

Level III, therapeutic study.