The Association Between Cement Viscosity and Revision Risk After Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty

BackgroundRecent case series have reported early failure with the use of high-viscosity cement (HVC) in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). We evaluated revision risk after TKA with HVC compared with medium-viscosity cement (MVC) in a large cohort.MethodsWe conducted a cohort study using data from Kaiser Permanente’s Total Joint Replacement Registry. Patients who underwent fully cemented primary TKA for osteoarthritis were identified (2001-2018). Only posterior-stabilized, fixed-mobility designs of the 3 highest-volume implant systems (DePuy PFC, Zimmer NexGen, and Zimmer Persona) were included to mitigate confounding from implant characteristics. Palacos (Zimmer/Heraeus) and Simplex (Stryker) cements comprised the HVC and MVC exposure groups, respectively. Propensity score–weighted Cox proportional hazards regression was used to evaluate risk for any revision during follow-up and risk for revision from aseptic loosening specifically.ResultsThe final cohort comprised 76,052 TKAs, 41.1% using MVC. The crude 14-year cumulative revision probability was 4.55% and 5.12% for TKA with MVC and HVC, respectively. In propensity score–weighted Cox models, MVC compared with HVC had a lower risk of any revision (hazard ratio = 0.82, 95% confidence interval = 0.70-0.95) while no difference was observed for revision from aseptic loosening (hazard ratio = 0.80, 95% confidence interval = 0.56-1.13).ConclusionWhile we observed a lower risk for any revision with the use of Simplex MVC compared with Palacos HVC, we did not observe a difference in revision for aseptic loosening specifically. Given the widespread use of HVC, additional research to investigate other HVC and potential mechanisms for failure outside of loosening is warranted.Level of EvidenceLevel III.     

Single Wedge Femoral Stem Designs are Associated With a Higher Risk for Revision After Cementless Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty

BackgroundCementless total hip arthroplasty (THA) femoral stems are the most commonly selected prostheses in the United States. Optimal stem geometry remains controversial with excellent survivorship reported for many designs. We compared cause-specific stem revision of single-wedge versus double-wedge designs from a multicenter US cohort.MethodsData from an integrated healthcare network’s total joint replacement registry were used to conduct a cohort study. Primary elective cementless THAs were identified (2001 to 2018). Implant exposure groups were classified by design geometry using the system proposed by Khanuja et al. Type 1 single-wedge (n = 11,082) and type 2 double-wedge (n = 32,380) designs were compared, and other design types were excluded; the final study cohort comprised 43,462 THAs. Cause-specific multivariable Cox regressions were used to evaluate risk for revision due to infection or aseptic reasons, including loosening, instability, periprosthetic fracture, or other reasons.ResultsAfter adjustment for covariates, a higher aseptic revision risk was observed for type 1 when compared to type 2 designs (hazard ratio = 1.91, 95% confidence interval = 1.33-2.75). When looking at specific revision reasons, revision for aseptic loosening (hazard ratio = 3.46, 95% confidence interval = 2.24-5.34) was higher for type 1 versus type 2 designs. No differences were found for septic revision, instability, periprosthetic fracture, or revisions for other reasons.ConclusionsType 1 single-wedge designs were found to have a higher risk of revision due to aseptic loosening relative to type 2 double-wedge designs. Femoral stem geometry should be considered when selecting a cementless femoral implant.Level of EvidenceLevel III.     

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.     

Smokeless Tobacco Use is Associated With Worse Outcomes Following Total Knee Arthroplasty

BackgroundStudies have demonstrated increased complication risk after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in patients who smoke cigarettes, but it is unclear if smokeless tobacco use confers a similar impact. The purpose of this study was to (1) evaluate rates of postoperative complications after TKA in smokeless tobacco users and smokers as compared to matched controls, and (2) compare rates of postoperative complications in smokeless tobacco users versus smokers to determine if one is associated with significantly higher rates of postoperative complications.MethodsA retrospective cohort study was conducted using a national database. For patients who underwent primary TKA, smokeless tobacco users (n = 1,535) and smokers (n = 28,953) were matched at a 1:4 with controls (n = 6,140 and 115,812, respectively), and smokeless tobacco users (n = 1,481) were matched at a 1:4 with smokers (n = 5,924). Rates of joint complications within 2 years and medical complications within 90 days postoperatively were compared using multivariable logistic regressions.ResultsAfter primary TKA, compared to controls, smokeless tobacco users demonstrated significantly higher rates of aseptic loosening/mechanical failure within 2 years, longer lengths of stay, and higher rates of urinary tract infection, pneumonia, deep vein thrombosis, and acute kidney injury within 90 days. Compared to smokers, smokeless tobacco users demonstrated significantly lower rates of aseptic revision and lower rates of wound disruption.ConclusionSmokeless tobacco use is associated with higher rates of both medical and joint complications following primary TKA. However, smoking is associated with higher risk for complications than smokeless tobacco use.Level of EvidenceLevel III.     

A Prophylactic Tibial Stem Reduces Rates of Early Aseptic Loosening in Patients with Severe Preoperative Varus Deformity in Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty

BackgroundPatients with a preoperative varus deformity >8 degrees are at increased risk of aseptic loosening after total knee arthroplasty. This study analyzes the effect of a tibial stem on the rate of aseptic loosening in patients with a severe preoperative varus deformity.MethodsPatients with a preoperative varus deformity of >8 degrees and 2-year minimum follow-up with a stemmed tibial component (n = 67) were matched 1:2 to patients with a similar preoperative varus deformity with a standard tibial component (n = 134). Radiolucent lines were measured on the tibia at 6 weeks, 1 year, and 2 years postoperatively using the Knee Society Radiographic Evaluation System. Failure was defined as revision due to aseptic loosening of the tibial component. Outcomes were evaluated using Student’s t-tests and log-rank tests.ResultsPatients with tibial stems had greater preoperative deformity (12.9 vs 11.3 degrees, P = .004). There was no difference in postoperative alignment (1.7 vs 2.1 degrees varus, P = .25) or tibial component angle (1.8 vs 2.1 degrees varus, P = .33). Patients with stems were more likely to have more constraint (44.8% vs 1.5%, P < .001). Progression of radiolucent lines >2 mm was observed in 17.6% (23/134) vs 5.97% (4/67) of patients in the stem group (P = .03). Rates of aseptic loosening were lower in the stem group (0% vs 5.15%, P = .05).ConclusionDespite worse preoperative deformity and higher utilization of constraint, tibial stem use in patients with severe preoperative varus deformity resulted in lower rates of aseptic loosening. Prophylactic use of stems in these patients may help increase implant survival.     

Reduced Aseptic Loosening With Fully Cemented Short-Stemmed Tibial Components in Primary Cemented Total Knee Arthroplasty

BackgroundRecently, the use of short tibial stems in the obese population undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has been proposed. Thus, we designed a study to assess tibial component survivorship after primary TKA using a single implant both with and without a fully cemented stem extension performed by a single surgeon.MethodsA search of our institutional research database was performed. A minimum 2-year follow-up was selected. Cohorts were created according to patient body mass index (BMI; >40 kg/m² and <40 kg/m²) and the presence (stemmed tibia [ST]) or absence (non-stemmed tibia [NST]) of a short tibial stem extension. Kaplan-Meier survival analyses for aseptic loosening and log-rank tests were performed.ResultsA total of 236 patients were identified (ST = 162, NST = 74). Baseline patient characteristics were statistically similar between cohorts with the exception of BMI which was greater in the ST cohort (32.9 kg/m², 30.6 kg/m²; P = .01). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis at 5 years was superior for the BMI < 40 kg/m² cohort (98.9%, 93.1%; P = .045), the ST cohort (100%, 94.5%; P = .006), and the BMI > 40 kg/m² with ST cohort at 4 years (71.4%, 100%; P = .008).ConclusionMorbid obesity and a short native tibial stem design appear to be associated with aseptic loosening in primary TKA. This appears to be mitigated through the use of an ST. As such, the use of ST may be considered in at-risk patients. Alternatively, implants with longer native stem designs can be employed. Modern short-stemmed tibial components may need to be redesigned.     

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.     

Cause-Specific Stem Revision Risk in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty Using Cemented vs Cementless Femoral Stem Fixation in a US Cohort

BackgroundWe sought to evaluate the cause-specific revision risk following hybrid (cemented stem mated to a cementless acetabular implant) vs cementless total hip arthroplasty (THA) in a US cohort.MethodsPrimary elective THA for osteoarthritis was identified using Kaiser Permanente’s Total Joint Replacement Registry (2001-2018). Multivariable Cox regression was used to evaluate cause-specific revision, including aseptic loosening, infection, instability, and periprosthetic fracture (PPF), for hybrid vs cementless THA. Analysis was stratified by age (<65, 65-74, and ≥75 years) and gender.ResultsThe study cohort comprised 88,830 THAs, including 4539 (5.1%) hybrid THAs. In stratified analysis, hybrid THA had a higher revision risk for loosening in females in all 3 age subgroups. A lower risk of revision for PPF was observed following hybrid THA in females aged ≥75 years. For females ≥75 years, cementless THA had an excess PPF risk of 0.9% while hybrid THA had an excess loosening risk of 0.2%, translating to a theoretical prevention of 10 PPF revisions but a price of 3 loosening revisions per 1000 hybrid THAs. No difference in revision risk was observed in males.ConclusionWe observed differences in cause-specific revision risks by method of stem fixation which depended upon patient age and gender. Although the trend toward all cementless fixation continue, there may be a role for hybrid fixation in females ≥75 years to mitigate risk for revision due to PPF at the potential cost of a slight increase in longer term aseptic loosening.Level of EvidenceLevel III.     

Total Knee Arthroplasty After Intramedullary Tibial Nail: A Matched Cohort Study

BackgroundAs the use of intramedullary nails (IMNs) has become more common, there are an increasing number of patients requiring total knee arthroplasty (TKA) who have an indwelling tibial IMN. The purpose of this study is to compare implant survivorship, clinical outcomes, and complications in patients undergoing primary TKA with a history of tibial IMN to those without.MethodsWe retrospectively identified 24 TKAs performed between 2000 and 2017 after ipsilateral tibial IMN. Patients were matched 1:2 to patients undergoing primary TKA without history of tibial IMN based upon age, gender, body mass index, and year of surgery. Mean follow-up was 7 years.ResultsThe 10-year survivorship free of any revision was 100% for the tibial IMN cohort, and 96% for the control cohort, while the 10-year survivorship free of any reoperation was 91% and 89%, respectively (P = .72). Patients with a history of tibial IMN had similar Knee Society Scores to matched controls at 2 years (P = .77) and 5 years (P = .09). Acquired idiopathic stiffness trended toward being more common (17% vs 6%, P = .21) and operative time trended toward being longer (135 vs 118 min, P = .07) when the tibial IMN was removed, but there was no overall difference in complication rate between cohorts.ConclusionsTo our knowledge, this is the first report of primary TKA in patients with a history of ipsilateral tibial IMN. Compared to a matched cohort of patients without tibial IMN, these patients have similar outcomes in regards to implant survivorship, clinical outcomes, and risk of complications.Level of EvidenceTherapeutic Level III.     

No Difference in Revision Rate Between Low Viscosity and High Viscosity Cement Used in Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty

BackgroundLoosening remains one of the most common reasons for revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Cement viscosity has a potential role in reducing revision rates for loosening. The aim of this study was to assess the outcome for loosening of the 5 most used cemented knee prostheses by constraint type, based on the cement viscosity type used.MethodsThere were 214,708 TKA procedures performed between 1999 and 2020 for a diagnosis of osteoarthritis using the 5 most commonly used minimally stabilized, posterior stabilized, and medial pivot design cemented tibial components. Only procedures with a cemented tibial component were included. Outcomes for two different cement viscosities, 140,060 high viscosity and 74,648 low viscosity cement, were compared for each fixation type within each of the three stability groups.ResultsThere was no difference in a risk of all-cause revision when high viscosity cement was used compared to low viscosity cement for minimally stabilized prostheses (hazards ratio [HR] 1.07 [95% CI 0.99-1.15], P = .09), posterior stabilized prostheses (HR 1.03 [95% CI 0.95-1.11], P = .53), and medial pivot design prostheses (HR 1.06 [95% CI 0.80-1.41], P = .67). No difference was observed between cement viscosity types for any of the prosthesis constraint types when aseptic loosening was assessed.ConclusionsWe found no difference in the risk of revision for any reason, or for loosening, with cement viscosity for the most commonly used minimally stabilized, posterior stabilized, and medial pivot TKA. The role of cement viscosity in the risk of TKA revision remains unclear and further research is required.Level of EvidenceLevel III Retrospective comparative study.     

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.     

Revision Risk in a Cohort of US Patients Younger Than 55 Undergoing Primary Elective Total Hip Arthroplasty

BackgroundAs indications for elective total hip arthroplasty (THA) expand to younger patients, we sought to (1) compare revision risk following primary elective THA in patients <55 years at the time of their THA to patients aged ≥65 years and (2) identify specific risk factors for revision in patients <55 years.MethodsA Kaiser Permanente's total joint replacement registry was used to conduct a cohort study including primary elective THA patients aged ≥18 (2001-2018). In total, 11,671 patients <55 years and 53,106 patients ≥65 years were included. Multiple Cox regression was used to evaluate cause-specific revision risk, including septic revision, aseptic loosening, instability, and periprosthetic fracture. Stepwise Cox regression was used to identify patient and surgical factors associated with cause-specific revision in patients <55 years.ResultsPatients <55 years had a higher risk of septic revision (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.30, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.02-1.66), aseptic loosening (HR = 2.60, 95% CI = 1.99-3.40), and instability (HR = 1.35, 95% CI = 1.09-1.68), but a lower risk of revision for periprosthetic fracture (HR = 0.36, 95% CI = 0.22-0.59) compared to patients aged ≥65 years. In the <55 age group, risk factors for septic revision included higher body mass index, drug abuse, and liver disease. Hypertension, anterior approach, and ceramic-on-ceramic were associated with aseptic loosening. White race, American Society of Anesthesiologists classification ≥3, smoker, paralysis, posterior approach, ceramic-on-ceramic, and smaller head diameter were associated with instability.ConclusionIdentified risk factors varied depending on the cause for revision. Although septic revisions were related to patient characteristics, more modifiable factors, such as implant or surgical approach, were associated with revision due to aseptic loosening and instability.Level of EvidenceIII.     

The Impact of Epilepsy on Complication Rates After Total Joint Arthroplasty: A Propensity Score–Matched Cohort Study

BackgroundIt is unclear how epilepsy may affect total joint arthroplasty outcomes. The purpose of this study is to analyze the impact of epilepsy on prosthesis-related complications following primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA).MethodsA retrospective cohort study was conducted using a national database. Patients who have epilepsy underwent a primary THA (n = 6,981) and TKA (n = 4,987) and were matched 1:4 (THA, n = 27,924; TKA, n = 19,948). Rates of low-energy falls and prosthesis-related complications within 2 years postoperatively were compared for patients who did and did not have epilepsy with multivariable logistic regression.ResultsAfter primary TKA, patients who have epilepsy exhibited significantly higher rates of aseptic revision (4.3% versus 3.5%, odds ratio [OR] 1.21, P = .017) and revision for prosthetic joint infection (1.8% versus 1.3%, OR 1.29, P = .041). THA patients who have epilepsy exhibited significantly higher rates of prosthetic dislocation (3.2% versus 1.9%, OR 1.54, P < .001), periprosthetic fracture (2.2% versus 0.8%, OR 2.39, P < .001), and aseptic loosening (1.7% versus 1.1%, OR 1.40, P = .002). Rates of low-energy falls within 2 years after TKA (14.1% versus 6.4%, OR 2.19, P < .001) and THA (33.6% versus 7.5%, OR 5.95, P < .001) were also significantly higher for patients who have epilepsy.ConclusionEpilepsy was associated with significantly higher rates of falls (P < .001) and prosthesis-related complications after primary THA (P < .05) and TKA (P < .05). Precautions should be implemented in this population during intraoperative and perioperative decision-making to reduce complication risk.Level of EvidenceLevel III.     

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.     

Increased Revisions in Conversion Total Knee Arthroplasty After Periarticular Open Reduction Internal Fixation Compared With Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Matched Cohort Analysis

BackgroundPrior studies on conversion total knee arthroplasty (cTKA) have reported increased technical challenges and risk of complications compared with primary knee arthroplasty. The purpose of this study was to compare two-year postoperative complication/revision rates between patients undergoing cTKA after prior periarticular open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) and those undergoing primary TKA.MethodsPatients who underwent cTKA after prior periarticular ORIF of the ipsilateral knee were identified in a national all-payer claims database from 2010 to 2018. This ORIF-cTKA cohort was propensity matched to participants undergoing primary TKA based on age, gender, Charlson comorbidity index, and obesity status. Univariate analysis was performed to analyze differences in two-year complication and revision rates.ResultsAfter propensity matching, 823 patients were included in the ORIF-cTKA cohort and 1640 patients in the primary TKA cohort. No differences in demographics or comorbidities existed between cohorts. Relative to the primary TKA cohort, the ORIF-cTKA cohort had significantly higher incidences of all-cause revision (5.47% vs 2.47%, P = .001), periprosthetic joint infection (PJI; 4.74% vs 1.34%, P < .001), and intraoperative or postoperative periprosthetic fracture (1.58% vs 0.55%, P = .01) at two years postoperatively. There was also a nonsignificant trend toward increased rates of aseptic loosening (1.82% vs 0.91%, P = .052) in the ORIF-cTKA.ConclusionRelative to primary TKA, cTKA after periarticular ORIF is associated with significantly increased rates of all-cause revision, PJI, and periprosthetic fracture at two years postoperatively. Surgeons should counsel these patients about the increased risks of these postoperative complications and consider treating them as high risk for PJI in the perioperative period.     

Clinical Outcomes in Isolated Tibial Revision With Cruciate Retaining Total Knee Arthroplasty

BackgroundTibial component loosening is one of the most common modes of failure in contemporary total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Limited literature is available on the outcomes of isolated tibial revision with retention of the cruciate retaining (CR) femoral component. The purpose of this study was to determine the results of isolated tibial revisions in CR TKA.MethodsWe identified 135 patients who underwent an isolated tibial revision after a primary CR TKA from our institutional registry between January 2007 and January 2017. The mean time between the primary and revision was 2.9 years (range 0.1-15.4). Revision with a press-fit stem was performed in 79 patients and 56 patients were revised with a fully cemented stem. Patients were evaluated at a minimum of two years using Knee Society Score, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Score for Joint Replacement, and radiography. Implant survivorship was determined using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis.ResultsAt a mean follow-up of 5.1 years, there were six (4.4%) repeat revisions: three for periprosthetic infection (2.2%), two for instability (1.5%), and one for a fractured tibial stem (0.7%). The mean Knee Society Score and Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Score for Joint Replacement increased from 51.6 and 56.1 preoperatively to 90.1 and 89.7 after surgery (P < .001). Survivorship free of repeat revision for any cause was 93.3% at 5 years, and aseptic revision survivorship was 95.8% at 5 years. No implants were radiographically loose.ConclusionIn patients with isolated tibial loosening and a well-fixed and well-positioned CR femoral component, isolated tibial revision provides excellent early to midterm implant survivorship and clinical outcomes with a low risk of instability and recurrent tibial loosening.     

Etiology and Complications of Early Aseptic Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty Within 90 Days

BackgroundThe etiology, complications, and rerevision risks of early aseptic revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) within 90 days are insufficiently documented.MethodsA national insurance claims database (PearlDiver Technologies, Fort Wayne, IN) was queried for patients who underwent unilateral aseptic revision THA within 90 days of the index procedure using administrative codes. Patients who underwent revision for infection, without minimum 2-year follow-up, and younger than 18 years were excluded. This cohort was matched based on gender, age, and Charlson Comorbidity Index to a control group of patients who underwent primary THA without revision within 90 days. Two-year rerevision and 90-day complication rates were recorded. Chi-square and Fisher exact tests were used as appropriate for statistical comparison.ResultsFour hundred two patients met the inclusion criteria for early aseptic revision within 90 days of the index procedure and were matched to the control group. The overall 2-year rerevision rate was higher in the early revision group compared with control group (14.9% vs 2.5%, P < .001). Complications within 90 days occurred more frequently in the early revision group, including blood transfusion (10.2% vs 3.2%, P < .001), deep vein thrombosis (9.0% vs 3.2%, P = .001), and pulmonary embolism (2.74% vs 0.75%, P = .031). The most common reasons for early aseptic revision were dislocation (41.5%), fracture (38.1%), and loosening (17.4%).ConclusionEarly aseptic revision THA is associated with significantly higher 90-day complication rates and 2-year rerevision rates compared with a control group of primary THA without revision. The most common reasons for acute early revision were dislocation, fracture, and mechanical loosening.Level of EvidenceLevel III.     

Short-Term Follow-Up of Patellar Component Revision in Patients With Isolated Patellar Component Loosening

BackgroundThe etiology of patellar component loosening can be multifactorial, including component malposition, trauma, infection, and poor implant design. These cases may be managed with isolated patellar component revision or simultaneous patellar component with femoral and/or tibial component revision. Isolated patellar revision in the setting of aseptic loosening historically has had limited success with high rates of repeat revision.MethodsWe performed a retrospective cohort study of 75 cases diagnosed with patellar component loosening that underwent revision. Patients were followed for a minimum of 2 years. Cases were categorized as either isolated patellar (IP) revision or patellar with femoral and/or tibial component (P + O) revisions. Survivorship and re-revision causes were compared between groups. Secondary outcomes included surgical time, estimated blood loss, range of motion, and length of stay.ResultsFifty patients underwent IP revision, and 25 patients had P + O revision. Overall survivorship at the 2-year follow-up interval was 94.6%. Survivorship of IP revision undertaken for aseptic loosening was 94%. Survivorship of P + O revision was 96%. Eight percent of patients required reoperation from the P + O revision group, while 12% of patients in the IP revision group underwent a reoperation. Patients undergoing IP revision had better postoperative range of motion, lower surgical times, lower estimated blood loss, and decreased length of stay.ConclusionIP revision demonstrates excellent survivorship and clinical outcomes comparable to P + O revision. When appropriate, IP revision should be considered as a potential treatment option.Level of EvidenceLevel III, retrospective cohort study.