Re-revision Knee Arthroplasty in a Tertiary Center: Infection and Multiple Previous Surgeries Were Associated With Poor Early Clinical and Functional Outcomes

BackgroundThe incidence of re-revision knee arthroplasty (re-revision KA) is increasing and associated with high complication and failure rates. The aim of this study was to investigate re-revision rates, complications, and patient-reported outcomes following re-revision KA and factors associated with poor outcome.MethodsThis was a retrospective cohort study of 206 patients (250 knees) undergoing re-revision KA at a major revision center from 2015 to 2018. The mean follow-up was 26 months (range, 0 to 61) and mean age at re-revision KA was 69 years (range, 31 to 91 years). The main indications for surgery were prosthetic joint infection (PJI) (n = 171/250, 68.4%) and aseptic loosening (n = 25/250, 10.0%). We compared re-revision rates, joint function, and complications for aseptic and infective indications. Logistic regressions were performed to identify risk factors for further reoperation.ResultsThe estimated re-revision rates at 2 years were 28.7% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 22.7-35.9) and at 4 years were 42.0% (95% CI: 32.8-52.6). Mean Oxford Knee Score was 26 points (range, 1 to 48). Mean EuroQoL-5D-5L utility was 0.539 (range, -0.511 to 1.000). Multivariable analyses demonstrated that PJI (Odds Ratio [OR] 2.39, 95% CI 1.06-5.40, P = .036), greater number of previous surgeries (OR 1.18, 95% CI 1.04-1.33, P = .008), and higher Elixhauser score (OR 1.06, 95% CI 1.01-1.13, P = .045) were independently associated to further surgery.ConclusionRe-revision KA carried a high risk of early failure. Multiple revised joints and patients with more comorbidities had worse function. Patients undergoing re-revision KA for PJI should be counseled to expect higher failure rates and complications than patients who have aseptic indications.     

High Rate of Re-Revision in Patients Less Than 55 Years of Age Undergoing Aseptic Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty

BackgroundThere are limited data on the outcomes of revision total knee arthroplasty in young patients. We sought to characterize the re-revision-free survival and risk factors for re-revision in patients less than 55 years who underwent aseptic revision TKA.MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed 197 revision TKAs at a mean follow-up of 5 years. Mean age was 49 years; mean body mass index was 31 kg/m². Twenty-seven (14%) patients had at least 1 prior revision TKA. The most common indications for revision included instability (29%), arthrofibrosis (26%), and aseptic loosening (24%). Constraint included the following: 59 posterior-stabilized (30%), 123 varus-valgus constrained (62%), and 15 hinged (8%). Components revised included the following: 93 femur/tibia (47%), 68 polyethylene-only (35%), 19 femur-only (10%), and 17 other (9%). Survivorship free from re-revision was calculated via the Kaplan-Meier method and a multivariate Cox proportional regression was utilized to identify risk factors for re-revision.ResultsSurvivorship free from any re-revision at 5 years was 80%. In the multivariate analysis, patients with a prior revision (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.78, P = .02), an isolated polyethylene exchange (HR = 3.0, P = .004), and a hinged prosthesis (HR = 3.47, P = .05) were significant risk factors for lower revision-free survival. Forty-two patients (21%) underwent re-revision, most commonly for periprosthetic joint infection (7%), instability (6%), and aseptic loosening (5%). Re-revision occurred in 18/68 (26%) patients undergoing an isolated polyethylene exchange.ConclusionPatients less than 55 years undergoing revision TKA have a modest 5-year revision-free survival of 80%. Patients with prior revision TKAs (HR = 2.78), hinge type prostheses (HR = 3.47), and polyethylene-only revisions (HR = 3.0) had higher revision rates.     

Varus-Valgus Constrained Implants With a Mobile-Bearing Articulation: Results of 367 Revision Total Knee Arthroplasties

BackgroundVarus-valgus constrained (VVC) implants are used for compromised ligamentous stability in revision total knee arthroplasties (TKAs). Mobile-bearing VVC implants may reduce rotational forces; yet, limited clinical data exist. The purpose of this study is to report mid-term risk of re-revision, complications, and clinical outcomes with a mobile-bearing VVC implant.MethodsThree hundred thirty-seven patients (367 TKAs) who underwent revision TKA with a mobile-bearing VVC implant between 1999 and 2013 at a single institution were reviewed. Mean age at revision was 67 years. Mean follow-up was 4 years. The main indications for revision were aseptic loosening in 158 cases (43%), reimplantation after 2-stage exchange arthroplasty in 120 (33%), instability in 61 (17%), and other in 28 (7%). Clinical outcomes were assessed by Knee Society Scores, and survivorship was analyzed with death as the competing risk.ResultsThe 5-year cumulative incidences of any re-revision or re-revision for aseptic loosening were 9% and 3%, respectively. Twenty-six knees (7%) were re-revised: 15 for infection, 6 for aseptic loosening, and 5 for other causes. There were 17 cases of irrigation and debridement, 10 cases of manipulations under anesthesia, and 9 cases of periprosthetic fractures. There were no bearing “spin-outs.” The mean Knee Society Scores improved from 45 preoperatively to 77 at most recent follow-up (P < .001).ConclusionThe functional improvement and 5-year cumulative incidence of revision of a mobile-bearing VVC implant demonstrated acceptable outcomes with no unique complications related to the mobile-bearing construct. Additional follow-up will be needed to determine long-term implant survivorship.     

Patient-Reported Outcomes and Satisfaction 1 to 3 Years After Revisions of Total Knee Arthroplasties for Unexplained Pain Versus Aseptic Loosening

BackgroundIt is unknown if patients are relieved of pain after knee arthroplasty revision for unexplained pain. The aim of this cross-sectional case-control study was to compare patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and satisfaction 1 to 3 years after revision of total knee arthroplasties (TKAs) for the indications of unexplained pain versus aseptic loosening.MethodsWe included 384 patients undergoing TKA revision for the indications of unexplained pain and aseptic loosening from January 1, 2018 to December 31, 2020 from the Danish Knee Arthroplasty Register. A total of 81 patients were revised for unexplained pain and 303 for aseptic loosening. Questionnaires including PROMs (Oxford Knee Score, EQ-5D-5L, and Forgotten Joint Score) and satisfaction with the surgery on a 0-100 scale (100 = not satisfied; 0 = very satisfied) were sent to digitally secured mailboxes. Time from revision to data collection was a median 3.1 years (range, 1.4-4.4 years).ResultsMedian Oxford Knee Score was 25 (interquartile range [IQR] 15) versus 31 (IQR 18) 1-3 years after revisions for unexplained pain versus aseptic loosening, P = .009. Median EQ-5D-5L was 0.6 (IQR 0.4) versus 0.8 (IQR 0.3) for unexplained pain versus aseptic loosening, P = .009. Median Forgotten Joint Score was 50 (IQR 7) versus 50 (IQR 16) for unexplained pain versus aseptic loosening, P = .905. Satisfaction was 75 (IQR 38) for unexplained pain and 50 (IQR 73) for aseptic loosening, P < .001.ConclusionPatients undergoing TKA revision for the indication of unexplained pain had worse results on PROMs than those revised for aseptic loosening. Likewise, patients revised for unexplained pain were less satisfied compared to patients revised for aseptic loosening. This information is valuable to both surgeons and patients when candidates for revision surgery are selected, to obtain the best possible outcomes.     

Prevalence and Impact of Positive Intraoperative Cultures in Partial Hip or Knee Revision

BackgroundOur aim is to investigate the impact of unexpected positive cultures on the outcome of partial prosthetic revisions.MethodsData regarding patients who underwent a partial hip or knee revision from 2003 and 2012 with the preoperative diagnosis of aseptic loosening was retrospectively reviewed. The protocol of revision included at least 3 intraoperative cultures. Failure was defined as the need for re-revision due to aseptic or septic loosening at 5 years.ResultsA total of 99 hip and 46 knee partial revisions were included. All cases had at least 5 years of follow-up. Ninety-seven cases (66.9%) had all cultures negative, 35 (24.1%) a single positive culture and 13 (9.0%) ≥2 positive cultures for the same microorganism. The median time from primary arthroplasty to partial revision was significantly shorter for patients with ≥2 positive cultures (26 months) than in those with all cultures negative (48 months) or with a single positive culture (51 months). Partial revisions performed within the first 5 years of implantation had a higher 5-year re-revision rate. The presence of a single positive culture during the partial exchange was not associated with a higher re-revision rate (2 of 35, 5.7%) than in those with negative cultures (3 of 97, 3.1%). On the contrary, re-revision rate was significantly higher in cases with ≥2 positive cultures (3 of 13, 23.1%) than in those with negative cultures (P = .02).ConclusionPartial revisions performed within the first 5 years from implantation and ≥2 intraoperative positive cultures were associated with a higher re-revision risk at 5 years.     

Survivorship and Risk Factors for Re-Revision after Aseptic Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty in Patients Aged ≤55 Years

BackgroundThere is a relative paucity of literature on the outcomes after revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) in young patients. This study reports the survivorship and risk factors for re-revision in patients aged ≤55 years.MethodsWe identified 354 patients undergoing aseptic nononcologic rTHA at mean follow-up of 5 years after revision, with mean age of 48 years, body mass index of 28 kg/m², and 64% female. Thirty-five (10%) patients underwent at least 1 previous rTHA. The main indications for rTHA included wear/osteolysis (21%), adverse local tissue reaction (21%), recurrent instability (20%), acetabular loosening (16%), and femoral loosening (7%); and included acetabular component-only rTHA in 149 patients (42%), femoral component-only rTHA in 46 patients (13%), both component rTHA in 44 patients (12%), and head/liner exchanges in patients 115 (33%). The Kaplan-Meier method was used to measure survivorship free from re-revision THA, and multivariate regression was used to identify risk factors for re-revision THA.ResultsSixty-two patients (18%) underwent re-revision THA at the mean time of 2.5 years, most commonly for instability (37%), aseptic loosening (27%), and prosthetic joint infection (15%). The rTHA survivorship from all-cause re-revision and reoperation was 83% and 79% at 5 years, respectively. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that patients undergoing femoral component only (hazard ratio 4.8, P = .014) and head/liner exchange rTHA (hazard ratio 2.5, P = .022) as risk factors for re-revision THA.ConclusionAbout 1 in 5 patients aged ≤55 years undergoing rTHA required re-revision THA at 5 years, most commonly for instability. The highest risk group included patients undergoing head/liner exchanges and isolated femoral component revisions.     

Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty for Aseptically Failed Metal-On-Metal Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty

BackgroundWhile common, studies assessing outcomes of failed metal-on-metal (MoM) resurfacings converted to total hip arthroplasties (THAs) are limited. We determined the outcomes following revision THA of aseptic MoM hip resurfacings.MethodsBetween 2000 and 2019, we identified 52 revision THAs for failed MoM hip resurfacings through our total joint registry. Mean age was 55 years, 42% were women, and mean body mass index was 28 kg/m². Adverse local tissue response led to THA in 67% of the cases. The most common revision articulation was metal-on-cross-linked or ceramic-on-cross-linked polyethylene (71%). Median head size was 36 mm. The acetabular component was retained in 21% and 28% used dual-mobility constructs. The mean follow-up was 6 years (range, 2-12 years).ResultsThe 5-year survivorships free of any re-revision or reoperation were 89% and 85%, respectively. The primary cause of re-revision (6) was dislocation (4). The 5-year cumulative probability of dislocation was 19% and was 13% in those patients treated with dual-mobility constructs versus 22% in those treated with standard articulations (P = .58). No dislocations occurred in THAs with retained acetabular components and dual-mobility constructs versus a 5-year cumulative probability of dislocation of 25% in those with revised acetabular components and standard articulations (P = .24).ConclusionRevision THAs for aseptically failed MoM hip resurfacings yielded a 5-year survivorship free of re-revision of 89%. The main reason for failure was dislocation, which was reduced, but not statistically significantly, when a dual-mobility construct was used, especially if the acetabular component was retained.Level of EvidenceIV.     

Isolated Versus Full Component Revision in Total Knee Arthroplasty for Aseptic Loosening

BackgroundRevision of both femoral and tibial components of a total knee arthroplasty (TKA) for aseptic loosening has favorable outcomes. Revision of only one loose component with retention of others has shorter operative time and lower cost; however, implant survivorship and clinical outcomes of these different operations are unclear.MethodsBetween January 2009 and December 2019, a consecutive cohort of revision TKA was reviewed. Univariate and multivariable analyses were used to study correlations among factors and surgical related complications, time to prosthesis failure, and functional outcomes (University of California Los Angeles, Knee Society functional, knee osteoarthritis and outcome score for joint replacement, Veterans RAND 12 (VR-12) physical, and VR-12 mental).ResultsA total of 238 patients underwent revision TKA for aseptic loosening. The mean follow-up time was 61 months (range 25 to 152). Ten of the 105 patients (9.5%) who underwent full revision (both femoral and tibial components) and 18 of the 133 (13.5%) who underwent isolated revision had subsequent prosthesis failure [Hazard ratio (HR) 0.67, P = .343]. The factor analysis of type of revision (full or isolated revision) did not demonstrate a significant difference between groups in terms of complications, implant failures, and times to failure. Metallosis was related to early time to failure [Hazard ratio 10.11, P < .001] and iliotibial band release was associated with more complications (Odds ratio 9.87, P = .027). Preoperative symptoms of instability were associated with the worst improvement in University of California Los Angeles score. Higher American Society of Anesthesiologists status and higher Charlson Comorbidity Index were related with worse VR-12 physical (?30.5, P = .008) and knee osteoarthritis and outcome score for joint replacement (?4.2, P = .050) scores, respectively.ConclusionIsolated and full component revision TKA for aseptic loosening does not differ with respect to prosthesis failures, complications, and clinical results at 5 years. Poor American Society of Anesthesiologists status, increased comorbidities, instability, and a severe bone defect are related to worse functional improvement.Level of evidenceIII, cohort with control.     

10-Year Cumulative Incidence and Indications for Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty Among Patients Who Have Sickle Cell Disease

BackgroundLiterature regarding total knee arthroplasty (TKA) outcomes in sickle cell disease (SCD) is limited. Moreover, 10-year survivorship of SCD implants is unknown. This study aimed to observe 10-year cumulative incidence and indications for revision TKA in patients who did and did not have SCD.MethodsPatients who underwent primary TKA were identified using a large national database. The SCD patients were matched by age, sex, and a comorbidity index to a control cohort in a 1:4 ratio. The 10-year cumulative incidence rates were determined using Kaplan–Meier survival analyses. Multivariable analyses were conducted using Cox proportional hazard modeling. Chi-squared analyses were conducted to compare indications for revision between cohorts. In total, 1,010 SCD patients were identified, 100,000 patients included in the unmatched control, and 4,020 patients included in the matched control.ResultsCompared to the unmatched control cohort, SCD patients exhibited higher 10-year all-cause revision (HR: 1.86; P < .001) with higher proportions of revisions for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) (P < .001), aseptic loosening (P < .001), and hematoma (P < .001). Compared to the matched control, SCD patients had higher 10-year all-cause revision (Hazard Ratio (HR): 1.39; P = .034) with a higher proportion of revisions for PJI (P = .044), aseptic loosening (P = .003), and hematoma (P = .019).ConclusionIndependent of other comorbidities, SCD patients are more likely to undergo revisions for PJI, aseptic loosening, and hematoma compared to patients who do not have SCD. Due to the high-risk of these complications, perioperative and postoperative surgical optimization should be enforced in SCD patients.     

Fate of the Retained Acetabular Component During Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review

BackgroundThe aim of this meta-analysis and systematic review is to estimate re-revision rates due to aseptic loosening of retained acetabular components after revision total hip arthroplasty.MethodsPubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched until June 11, 2018. Data were extracted by 2 independent investigators and consensus was reached with the involvement of a third investigator. Rates of re-revision due to aseptic loosening from 6 studies were aggregated using random effects model after a logit transformation and were grouped by study and population level characteristics.ResultsAn assessment of the re-revision rates of retained acetabular components due to aseptic loosening in revision total hip arthroplasty was reported in 6 studies involving 669 cases. The pooled re-revision rate was 12.6% (95% confidence interval 8.4-18.4) with a mean study follow-up of 8.6 years. The rate of re-revision due to aseptic loosening of retained acetabular components was 6.8% (95% confidence interval 3.4-13.3). In the univariate meta-regression analysis, mean age at index revision surgery was significantly associated with the rate of re-revision due to aseptic loosening (R² = 99.98%, P < .0001).ConclusionBased on this exploratory analysis, revision hip procedures with retentions of well-fixed acetabular components generally have a low risk of failure during mid-term to long-term follow-ups.     

Comparison of Modular Conventional and High-Flexion Posterior-Stabilized Total Knee Arthroplasties in the Same Patients at a Mean Follow-Up of 15 Years

BackgroundAs previous studies are limited to short-term clinical data on conventional and high-flexion total knee arthroplasties (TKAs), long-term clinical data on these TKAs remain unclear. Therefore, we evaluated long-term functional outcome, range of knee motion, revision rate, implant survival, and the prevalence of osteolysis after conventional and high-flexion TKAs in the same patients.MethodsThe authors evaluated a cohort of 1206 patients with a mean age of 65.3 ± 7 years (range: 22-70) who underwent bilateral simultaneous sequential TKAs. One knee received a conventional TKA and the other received a high-flexion TKA. The mean duration of follow-up was 15.6 years (range: 14-17).ResultsNo significant differences were found between the 2 groups at the latest follow-up with respect to Knee Society score (93 vs 92 points, P = .765), pain score (45 vs 44 points, P = .641), range of knee motion (125° vs 126°, P = .712), and radiographic and computed tomography scan results. Furthermore, no significant revision rate differences were found between the 2 groups (1.3% for conventional TKA vs 1.6% for high-flexion TKA; P = .137). There was no osteolysis recorded in either group. The rate of survivorship free of implant revision or aseptic loosening was 98.7% (95% CI = 91-100) for conventional TKA and 98.4% (95% CI = 91-100) for high-flexion TKA at 17 years.ConclusionAt the latest follow-up, we were not able to demonstrate any significant difference between conventional and high-flexion TKAs with respect to functional outcome scores, range of knee motion, revision rate, implant survival, and prevalence of osteolysis.     

The Effect of Polyethylene Liner Thickness on Patient Outcomes and Failure After Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty

BackgroundThe effect of using thicker liners in primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) on functional outcomes and aseptic failure rates remains largely unknown. As such, we devised a multicenter study to assess both the clinical outcomes and survivorship of thick vs thin liners after primary TKA.MethodsA search of our institutional databases was performed for patients having undergone bilateral (simultaneous or staged) primary TKA with similar preoperative and surgical characteristics between both sides. Two cohorts were created: thick liners and thin liners. Outcomes collected were as follows: change in Knee Society Score (ΔKSS), change in range of motion, and aseptic revision. Ad hoc power analysis was performed for ΔKSS (⍺ = 0.05; power = 80%). Differences between cohorts were assessed.ResultsAbout 195 TKAs were identified for each cohort. ΔKSS and change in range of motion in the thin vs thick cohorts were similar: 51.4 vs 51.6 (P = .86) and 11.1° vs 10.0° (P = .66), respectively. No difference in aseptic revision rates were observed between thin and thick cohorts: all cause (4.1%, 3.1%; P = .59), aseptic loosening (0.5%, 0.5%; P = 1.0), instability (0.5%, 0.5%; P = 1.0), all-cause revision for stiffness (3.1%, 2.1%; P = .52), manipulation under anesthesia (2.1%, 2.1%; P = 1.0), and liner exchange (0.5%, 0%; P = .32).ConclusionThe results of this study suggest that both rates of revision surgery and clinical outcomes are similar for TKAs performed with thick and thin liners. Preoperative factors are likely to play an important role in liner thickness selection, and emphasis should be placed on ensuring sound surgical technique.     

Superior Survival of Fully Cemented Fixation Compared to Hybrid Fixation in a Single Design Rotating Hinge Knee Implant

BackgroundClinical observations revealed higher rates of aseptic loosening for hybrid fixated rotating hinge knee implants compared to fully cemented ones. We hypothesize that the use of a fully cemented fixation technique had a higher survival rate for aseptic loosening compared to a hybrid fixation technique in a rotating hinge knee implant.MethodsAll procedures of patients who were treated with the RT-PLUS rotating hinge knee implant (Smith & Nephew, Memphis, TN) between 2010 and 2018 were included. Primary outcome was revision for aseptic loosening. Kaplan-Meier survivorship and Cox proportional hazard regression analysis were performed to calculate survival rates and hazard ratios.ResultsA total of 275 hinge knee implants were placed in 269 patients (60 primary procedures, 215 revisions). Median follow-up was 7.3 ± 3.9 years. In total, 24 components (16 hybrid femur, 2 fully cemented femur, 6 hybrid tibia; all revision procedures) in 19 patients were revised for aseptic loosening. Kaplan-Meier survivorship analysis showed superior survival rates of fully cemented components (femur 97.1%; tibia 100%) compared to hybrid fixated components (femur 89.5%; tibia 95.9%) at the 10-year follow-up. Multivariate Cox hazard analysis showed a significantly higher risk of aseptic loosening for hybrid fixated components, a prior stemmed component and the femoral component.ConclusionFully cemented fixation showed superior survival rates for aseptic loosening compared to hybrid fixation in a single design rotating hinge knee implant. A prior stemmed component appears to be a risk factor for aseptic loosening and the femoral component seems to be more prone to loosening.     

Satisfactory Outcomes of All-Poly Fixed Bearing Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty for Avascular Osteonecrosis Versus Osteoarthritis: A Comparative Study With 10 to 22 Years of Follow-up

BackgroundWhile good mid-term results for treating spontaneous knee osteonecrosis (SPONK) with unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) have been reported, concerns remain about implant survival at long-term. This study aimed to compare outcomes and survivorship of UKA for SPONK vs osteoarthritis at a minimum of 10 years.MethodsThis case-control study included medial UKA for femoral SPONK operated between 1996 and 2010 with a minimum 10-year follow-up (n = 47). Each case was matched with a medial UKA for osteoarthritis based on body mass index (BMI), gender, and age. Knee Society Score (KSS), complications and radiological (loosening) data were collected at the last follow-up. Kaplan-Meier survivorship analysis was performed using revision implant removal as endpoint.ResultsThe mean follow-up was 13.2 years (range 10 to 21 years). Mean age and BMI were 72.9 ± 8.4 years and 25.5 ± 3.6 Kg/m² in SPONK group. At last follow-up, knee and function KSS were 89.5 ± 12 and 79 ± 18 in SPONK group vs 90 ± 15 (P = .85) and 81.7 ± 17 (P = .47) in control group. Complications and radiological results showed no significant differences. The survival rate free from any revision was 85.1% at last follow-up in SPONK group and 93.6% in control group (P = .23). The leading cause for revision was aseptic tibial loosening (57.1%) in SPONK group. The 15-year survival estimate was 83% in SPONK group.ConclusionSatisfactory clinical outcomes at long-term after UKA for femoral SPONK were observed, similar to those after UKA for osteoarthritis, despite a higher risk of tibial loosening in the SPONK group. No symptomatic femoral loosening leading to a revision was observed.Level of EvidenceIV.     

Impact of Polyethylene Thickness on Clinical Outcomes and Survivorship in Medial Mobile-Bearing Unicondylar Knee Arthroplasty

BackgroundThe thickness of the polyethylene bearing in medial unicondylar knee arthroplasty (UKA) is determined by the depth of the tibial resection, degree of correctable deformity, and balance of the knee. The purpose of this study is to evaluate whether polyethylene thickness in medial mobile-bearing UKA impacts clinical outcomes and survivorship.MethodsA retrospective review from 2004 to 2017 identified patients who underwent a primary mobile-bearing medial UKA with 2-year minimum follow-up or revision. A total of 2305 patients (3030 knees) met inclusion criteria. Patients were divided in 2 groups: thin bearing (group 1): 3-mm or 4-mm bearing and thick bearing (group 2): ≥ 5 mm. The thin group consisted of 2640 knees (87%), whereas the thick group had 390 knees (13%). Preoperative and postoperative demographics, range of motion, Knee Society scores, complications, and reoperations were evaluated.ResultsMean follow-up was 5.2 years (range, 0.5 to 12.6). There was no significant difference between groups in postoperative range of motion or Knee Society scores (P > .05). Manipulations were performed in 1.3% of patients and not significantly different between groups. The all-cause revision rate for group 1 was 4.02% and group 2 was 4.58% (P = .6). Revision rates for tibial aseptic loosening were significantly higher in group 2 (1.8%) than those in group 1 (0.7%) (P = .04). There was no significant difference in failure rates between groups for tibial collapse or fracture, femoral aseptic loosening, arthritic progression, bearing dislocation, or other cause of revision.ConclusionThis study demonstrated that thicker bearings in medial UKA increased the risk of tibial aseptic loosening, but not all-cause failures or clinical outcomes.     

High Incidence of Tibial Component Loosening After Total Knee Arthroplasty Using Ceramic Titanium-Nitride-Coated Mobile Bearing Prosthesis in Moderate to Severe Varus Deformity: A Matched-Pair Study Between Ceramic-Coated Mobile Bearing and Fixed Bearing Prostheses

BackgroundWe compared the incidence of aseptic component loosening and subsequent revision, and the survival rate between ceramic titanium-nitride-coated mobile bearing (MB) and fixed bearing total knee arthroplasties (TKAs) performed in patients with moderate to severe varus deformities.MethodsIn total, 200 TKAs using advanced coated system posterior stabilized prostheses in varus deformity of mechanical axis >8° between 2012 and 2016 were retrospectively reviewed. One hundred MB (ceramic-m group) and 100 fixed bearing (ceramic-f group) prostheses were included. The matches were made according to preoperative demographics, range of motion, and severity of deformity. The mean follow-up period was not different (ceramic-m vs ceramic-f = 4.8 vs 5.1 years; P = .104). The incidence of revision TKA due to aseptic component loosening and the survival rate (failure: revision due to aseptic loosening) was investigated.ResultsThe incidence of revision TKA due to aseptic component loosening was 7 (7%) in the ceramic-m group and 1 (1%) in the ceramic-f group (P = .032). All cases of aseptic loosening occurred at the tibial component. The overall survival rate was 91.3% in the ceramic-m group and 98.9% in the ceramic-f group (P = .025).ConclusionConsidering the higher revision incidence and lower survival rate due to tibial component loosening, caution should be taken in tibial component fixation when using advanced coated system MB prosthesis in moderate to severe varus deformity.Level of EvidenceIII     

Weight Gain After Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty Is Associated With Accelerated Time to Revision for Aseptic Loosening

BackgroundObesity is a major health problem worldwide and is associated with complications after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). It remains unknown whether a change in body mass index (BMI) after primary TKA affects the reasons for revision TKA or the time to revision TKA.MethodsA total of 160 primary TKAs referred to an academic tertiary center for revision TKA were retrospectively stratified according to change in BMI from the time of their primary TKA to revision TKA. The association between change in BMI and time to revision was also analyzed according to indication for revision of TKA using Pearson's chi-square test.ResultsThe mean change in BMI from primary to revision TKA was 0.82 ± 3.5 kg/m². Maintaining a stable weight after primary TKA was protective against late revision TKA for any reason (P = .004). Patients who failed to reduce their BMI were revised for aseptic loosening earlier, at less than 5 years (P = .020), whereas those who reduced their BMI were revised later, at over 10 years (P = .004).ConclusionMaintaining weight after primary TKA is protective against later revision TKA for any reason but failure to reduce weight after primary TKA is a risk factor for early revision TKA for aseptic loosening and osteolysis. Orthopedic surgeons should recommend against weight gain after primary TKA to reduce the risk of an earlier revision TKA in the event that a revision TKA is indicated.     

Does Body Mass Index Influence the Outcomes and Survivorship of Modern Cementless Total Knee Arthroplasty?

BackgroundHigher body mass index (BMI) has been associated with higher rates of aseptic loosening following cemented total knee arthroplasty (TKA). However, there is a paucity of evidence on the effect of BMI on the durability of modern cementless TKA. We aimed to assess the association between BMI and clinical outcomes following cementless TKA and to determine if there was a BMI threshold beyond which the risk of revision significantly increased.MethodsWe identified 1,408 cementless TKAs of a modern design from an institutional registry. Patients were classified into BMI categories: normal (n = 136), overweight (n = 476), obese class I (n = 423), II (n = 258), and III (n = 115). The Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacement and 12-item Short Form Health Survey scores were collected preoperatively and 2 years postoperatively. Survivorship was recorded at minimum 2 years (range, 24 to 88 months). BMI was analyzed as a continuous and categorical variable.ResultsThe improvement in patient-reported outcomes was similar across the groups. Thirty four knees (2.4%) were revised and 14 (1.0%) were for aseptic failure. Mean time-to-revision was 1.2 ± 1.3 years and did not differ across BMI categories (P = .455). Survivorship free from all-cause and aseptic revision was 97.1% and 99.0% at mean 4 years, respectively. Using Cox regression to control for demographics and bilateral procedures, BMI had no association with all-cause revision (P = .612) or aseptic revision (P = .186). Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis found no relationship between BMI and revision risk (c-statistic = 0.51).ConclusionBMI did not influence functional outcomes and survivorship of modern cementless TKA, possibly due to improved biological fixation at the bone-implant interface. Longer follow-up is necessary to confirm these findings.     

Prior Knee Arthroscopy Is Associated With Increased Risk of Revision After Total Knee Arthroplasty

BackgroundKnee arthroscopy (KA) is frequently performed to provide improved joint function and pain relief. However, outcomes following total knee arthroplasty (TKA) after prior KA are not fully understood. The purpose of this study is to determine the relationship between prior KA within 2 years of TKA on revision rates after TKA.MethodsData were collected from the Humana insurance database using the PearlDiver Patient Records Database from 2006 to 2017. Subjects were identified using Current Procedural Terminology and International Classification of Diseases procedure codes to identify primary TKA. Patients were stratified into 2 groups based upon a history of prior KA. Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted to determine association between KA and outcomes at 2-year postoperative period.ResultsIn total, 138,019 patients were included in this study, with 3357 (2.4%) patients receiving a KA before TKA and 134,662 (97.6%) patients who did not. The most common reason for KA was osteoarthritis (40.0%), followed by medial tear of the meniscus (26.0%) and chondromalacia (21%.0). After adjustment, prior KA was associated with increased revision rate (odds ratio [OR], 1.392; P = .003), postoperative stiffness (OR, 1.251; P = .012), periprosthetic joint infection (OR, 1.326; P < .001), and aseptic loosening (OR, 1.401; P = .048).ConclusionPrior KA is significantly associated with increased 2-year TKA revision rate. The most common etiology for arthroscopy was osteoarthritis. The results of the study, showing that arthroscopy before TKA substantially increases the rates of revision, PJI, aseptic loosening, and stiffness, lend further credence to the idea that patients may be better served by nonsurgical management of their degenerative pathology until they become candidates for TKA. Subjecting this population to arthroscopy appears to offer limited benefit at the cost of poorer outcomes when they require arthroplasty in the future.Level of EvidenceLevel III therapeutic study.