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.     

Increased Survivorship of Cementless versus Cemented TKA in the Morbidly Obese. A Minimum 5-Year Follow-Up

Background

Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in the morbidly obese patients can be challenging with an increased risk of complications. Studies have shown increased aseptic failures with well-aligned cemented TKAs in the obese patient. The purpose of this study is to determine if TKA in the morbidly obese (body mass index [BMI] ≥ 40) using cementless implants would demonstrate improved results and survivorship compared to cemented TKA at a minimum 5-year follow-up.

Cemented Total Knee Arthroplasty Shows Less Blood Loss but a Higher Rate of Aseptic Loosening Compared With Cementless Fixation: An Updated Meta-Analysis of Comparative Studies

BackgroundThe aim of this study was to update the current evidence on functional outcomes, complications, and reoperation rates between cemented and cementless total knee arthroplasty (TKA) by evaluating comparative studies published over the past 15 years.MethodsThe PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, and the Cochrane Central databases were used to search keywords and a total of 18 studies were included. Random and fixed effect models were used for the meta-analysis of pooled mean differences (MDs) and odds ratios (ORs).ResultsA total of 5,222 patients were identified with a mean age of 64.4 ± 9.4 and 63 ± 8.6 years for the cemented and cementless TKA groups, respectively. The mean follow-up was 107.9 ± 30 and 104.3 ± 10 months for the cemented and cementless TKA groups, respectively. Cemented TKA showed a significantly greater postoperative Knee Society Score (MD = ?0.95, 95% CI [?1.57, 0.33], P = .003) and range of motion (MD = ?1.09, 95% CI [?1.88, ?0.29], P = .0007), but no differences in other outcome scores were found. The incidence of periprosthetic joint infection, radiolucent lines, instability, and polyethylene wear was also comparable. Cemented TKA showed less perioperative blood loss (SMD = ?438.41, 95% CI [?541.69, ?35.14], P < .0001) but a higher rate of manipulation under anesthesia (OR = 3.39, 95% CI [1.64, 6.99], P = .001) and aseptic loosening (OR = 1.62, 95% CI [1.09, 2.41], P = .02) than cementless TKA. No differences were found in terms of the reoperation rate.ConclusionWhen cemented and cementless fixations are compared in primary TKA, comparable functional outcomes and reoperation rates can be achieved. Cemented TKA showed less blood loss but a higher rate of manipulation under anesthesia and aseptic loosening.     

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     

The effect of surgeon’s preference for hybrid or cemented fixation on the long-term survivorship of total knee replacement

Background and purpose — Recent direct comparative reports suggest that hybrid fixation may have a similar or superior outcome to cemented fixation in total knee replacement (TKR); however, a paucity of long-term data exists. To minimize the confounders of a direct comparison, we performed an instrumental variable analysis examining the revision rate of 2 cohorts of patients based on their surgeon’s preference for cemented or hybrid fixation.

Methods — Registry data were obtained from 1999 until 2015 for 2 cohorts of patients who received minimally stabilized TKR, defined as those treated by high-volume hybrid fixation preferring surgeons, designated routinely hybrid (RH), and those treated by high-volume cemented fixation preferring surgeons, designated routinely cemented (RC).

Results — At 13 years, the cumulative percentage revision of the RC cohort was 4.8% (CI 4.1–5.7) compared with 5.5% (CI 3.5–8.7) for the RH cohort. The revision risk for each cohort was the same for all causes (HR =1.0 (CI (0.84–1.20)), non-infective causes, and for infection. This finding was irrespective of patient age or sex, patella resurfacing, and with non-cross-linked polyethylene (NXLPE). The RH cohort who received cross-linked polyethylene (XLPE) had a lower revision risk than the RC cohort with XLPE (HR =0.57 (0.37–0.88), p = 0.01).

Interpretation — The risk of revision for the patients of surgeons who prefer cemented fixation in minimally stabilized TKR is the same as for the patients of surgeons who prefer hybrid fixation, except when used with XLPE, where hybrid fixation has a lower revision risk.     

Revision arthroplasty of the hip joint

Summary During the period 1974–1983, 768 total hip arthroplasties were performed at the Surgical Hospital, University Central Hospital in Helsinki. Brunswik prostheses were used until 1980, and after this the operations were routinely performed with Lubinus prostheses. Additionally, from 1977 to 1981 Wagner and Freeman resurfacing prostheses were used in 107 cases. Of all these patients, 44 (5.7%) needed revision arthroplasty. The average interval between the primary operation and revision arthroplasty was 3.7 years and the follow-up period after the second operation averaged 2.9 years. The patients who underwent revision arthroplasty were compared with a matched control group. In the revision group, radiographs revealed that the medial cement packing was complete in 28% of the hips, this being the case in 78% of the controls (P < 0.001). Also, the cement tip packing was more often incomplete in the revision hips than in the controls (P < 0.01). Regarding the lateral cement packing there was no statistical difference between the two groups. The revision rate of the resurfacing prostheses was 14.9%, compared with 7.8% of the Brunswik prostheses which were inserted at the same time. At the follow-up, the patients with revised hips had less pain than before the primary operation (P < 0.001) and their mobility was similarly improved. We conclude that adequate medial and tip cement packing must be emphasized in the primary arthroplasty. Resurfacing prostheses have a relatively high loosening tendency. Revision arthroplasty is the treatment of aseptic loosening after total hip replacement and it gives good clinical results.Aseptic loosening is the most common long-term complication after total hip replacement surgery. Clinical loosening rates are mostly judged by the number of patients who have been reoperated on, this probably leading to somewhat low figures. Reports on prosthesis loosening usually concern cemented prostheses, and both analyses based on radiographical evidence and revision rates have been published [1, 3, 4, 10, 12, 14]. It appears that most of the prostheses, at least as concerns femoral components, loosen during the first 5 years, and the numbers increase only slowly between 5 and 10 years postoperatively [16, 17].A certain proportion of prostheses will loosen even when the most progressive operative methods are used, and revision arthroplasties of the hip joint are part of the routine of orthopedic departments. We have analyzed our total hip revision arthroplasties, focusing on the factors leading to prosthesis loosening and on the outcome of hip revision operations.     

The Outcome of Total Knee Arthroplasty With and Without Patellar Resurfacing up to 17 Years: A Report From the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry

BackgroundPatellar resurfacing in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) remains a controversial issue after more than 4 decades of TKA. Despite a growing body of evidence from registry data, resurfacing is still based largely on a surgeon’s preference and training. The purpose of this study is to provide long-term outcomes for patellar resurfaced compared to when the patella is not resurfaced.MethodsData from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (1999-2017) were used for this study. The analysis included 570,735 primary TKAs undertaken for osteoarthritis. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 17-year cumulative percent revision rates were used to compare revision rates between 4 subgroups: minimally stabilized (MS) patellar resurfacing, posterior stabilized (PS) patellar resurfacing, MS unresurfaced, and PS unresurfaced patella. Additional analyses of the patellar implant type and a comparison of inlay and onlay patellar resurfacing were also performed.ResultsFor all primary TKA, procedures where the patella was not resurfaced have a higher rate of revision compared to procedures where the patella was resurfaced (HR, 1.31; confidence interval, 1.28-1.35; P < .001). Unresurfaced PS knees have the highest cumulative percent revision at 17 years (11.1%), followed by MS unresurfaced (8.8%), PS resurfaced (7.9%), and MS resurfaced (7.1%). Inlay patellar resurfacing has a higher rate of revision compared to onlay patellar resurfacing (HR, 1.27; confidence interval, 1.17-1.37; P < .001).ConclusionResurfacing the patella reduces the rate of revision for both MS and PS knees. MS knees with patellar resurfacing have the lowest rate of revision. Onlay patella designs are associated with a lower revision rate compared to inlay patella designs.     

Cemented vs Uncemented Femoral Components: A Randomized,Controlled Trial at 10 Years Minimum Follow-Up

BackgroundThe type of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) fixation (cemented or uncemented) is still subject to debate. The aim of this study is to assess the survival rate, clinical outcomes, and radiological results of TKA according to the fixation type.MethodsA total of 130 patients were randomly assigned to either the cement group (cemented femoral and tibial implants) or the hybrid group (cemented tibial implant, uncemented femoral implant). The inclusion criteria were patients between 50 and 90 years old who underwent primary TKA for osteoarthritis between 2004 and 2005 without a history of open knee surgery. Revisions and complications were reported, as well as clinical scores and radiological signs of loosening.ResultsOne hundred eighteen patients had complete data at 10 years of minimum follow-up (59 in each group). The mean age was 72 years old. The mean follow-up was 13 years. The survival rate was 98% at 13 years in both groups (1 aseptic loosening at 2 years in the cement group, 1 septic loosening in the hybrid group). The complication rate in the cement group was 8.5% (n = 5) vs 12.1% (n = 7) in the hybrid group (P = .8). The clinical results were not significantly different. In the cement group, 25% of patients (n = 15) had radiolucent lines at 10 years. In the hybrid group, 33% of patients had bone transparencies, not evolving or symptomatic.ConclusionAt a minimum follow-up of 10 years, there were no significant differences between cemented TKA and hybrid TKA for the survivorship, the complication rate, the clinical scores, or the radiological signs of loosening.Level of EvidenceI.     

Clinical and Patient-Reported Outcomes of Medial Stabilized Versus Non–Medial Stabilized Prostheses in Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BackgroundThe aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the clinical and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) of medial stabilized total knee arthroplasty (TKA) with non–medial stabilized TKAs.MethodsA systematic search of multiple databases was conducted in October 2019. A meta-analysis was conducted for the Knee Society Score (KSS), Knee Society Functional Score (KFS), range of motion (ROM), Oxford Knee Score (OKS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and Forgotten Joint Score (FJS).ResultsA total of 857 articles yielded 21 studies eligible for inclusion with 13 studies used for quantitative analysis. The meta-analysis revealed that the medial stabilized group had a mean FJS that was 13.8 points higher than that of the non–medial stabilized TKA (mean difference [MD]: 13.83, P ≤ .0001, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 8.90-18.76, I² = 0%) which was less than the minimal clinically important difference of 14. The medial stabilized group also demonstrated a statistically significant difference in the postoperative ROM (MD = 2.52, P = .05, 95% CI: ?0.03 to 5.07, I² = 85%) and OKS when compared with the non–medial stabilized group (MD = 1.25, P = .02, 95% CI: 0.17-2.33, I² = 27%), but these were not clinically significant. There was no statistically or clinically significant difference in the KSS, KFS, and WOMAC scores.ConclusionMedial stabilized knee prostheses demonstrated no clinically significant differences for the ROM, OKS, WOMAC, KSS, and KFS. The FJS demonstrated the greatest MD and warrants further investigation. Future research is required using patient-reported outcome measures with a lower ceiling effect such as the FJS.     

What Are the Frequency,Related Mortality,and Factors Associated with Bone Cement Implantation Syndrome in Arthroplasty Surgery?

BackgroundBone cement implantation syndrome (BCIS) is characterized by hypoxia, hypotension, and the loss of consciousness during cemented arthroplasty; it may result in death. Its incidence has only been explored for hemiarthroplasty and THA after fracture or cancer. To our knowledge, there are no studies that comprehensively explore and compare the incidence of BCIS in other arthroplasty procedures.Questions/purposes(1) To report the incidence of BCIS in TKA, unicondylar knee arthroplasty, hip hemiarthroplasty, THA, shoulder arthroplasty, TKA, and revision THA and TKA; (2) to determine whether severe BCIS is associated with an increased risk of death within 30 days of surgery; and (3) to identify factors associated with the development of severe BCIS.MethodsAll patients undergoing cemented arthroplasty for any reason (TKA [11% cemented, 766 of 7293], unicondylar knee arthroplasty [100% cemented, 562 procedures], hip hemiarthroplasty for femur fractures [100% cemented, 969 procedures], THA [8% cemented, 683 of 8447], shoulder arthroplasty [84% cemented, 185 of 219], and revision arthroplasty of the hip and knee [36% cemented, 240 of 660]) between January 2008 and August 2019 were considered for inclusion in the current retrospective observational study. Fixation choice was dependent on surgeon preference (THA and TKA), prosthesis design (shoulder arthroplasty), or bone quality (revision arthroplasty). The following procedures were excluded because of insufficient data: < 1% (1 of 766) of TKAs, 1% (4 of 562) of unicondylar knee arthroplasties, 6% (54 of 969) of hip hemiarthroplasties, 1% (6 of 683) of THAs, 6% (12 of 185) of shoulder arthroplasties, and 14% (34 of 240) of revision procedures. This resulted in a final inclusion of 3294 procedures (765 TKAs [23%], 558 unicondylar knee arthroplasties [17%], 915 hip hemiarthroplasties [28%], 677 THA [21%], 173 shoulder arthroplasties [5%], and 206 revision arthroplasties [6%]), of which 28% (930 of 3294) had an emergent indication for surgery. Of the patients, 68% (2240 of 3294) were females, with a mean age of 75 ± 11 years. All anesthetic records were extracted from our hospital’s database, and the severity of BCIS was retrospectively scored (Grade 0 [no BCIS], Grade 1 [O₂% < 94% or fall in systolic blood pressure of 20% to 40%], Grade 2 [O₂% < 88% or fall in systolic blood pressure of > 40%], and Grade 3 [cardiovascular collapse requiring CPR]). Procedures were dichotomized into no or moderate BCIS (Grades 0 and 1) and severe BCIS (Grades 2 and 3). The adjusted 30-day mortality of patients with severe BCIS was assessed with a multivariate Cox regression analysis. A multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with the development of severe BCIS.ResultsBCIS occurred in 26% (845 of 3294) of arthoplasty procedures. The incidence was 31% (282 of 915) in hip hemiarthroplasty, 28% (210 of 765) in TKA, 24% (165 of 677) in THA, 23% (47 of 206) in revision arthroplasty, 20% (113 of 558) in unicondylar knee arthroplasty, and 16% (28 of 173) in shoulder arthroplasty. Patients with severe BCIS were more likely (hazard ratio 3.46 [95% confidence interval 2.07 to 5.77]; p < 0.001) to die within 30 days of the index procedure than were patients with less severe or no BCIS. Factors independently associated with the development of severe BCIS were age older than 75 years (odds ratio 1.57 [95% CI 1.09 to 2.27]; p = 0.02), American Society of Anesthesiologists Class III or IV (OR 1.58 [95% CI 1.09 to 2.30]; p = 0.02), and renal impairment (OR 3.32 [95% CI 1.45 to 7.46]; p = 0.004).ConclusionBCIS is common during cemented arthroplasty; severe BCIS is uncommon, but it is associated with an increased risk of death within 30 days of surgery. Medically complex patients undergoing hip hemiarthroplasty may be at particular risk. Patients at high risk for severe BCIS (renal impairment, ASA III/IV, and age older than 75 years) should be identified and preventive measures such as medullary lavage before cementation, femoral venting, and avoidance of excessive pressurization of implants should be taken to reduce the likelihood and consequences of BCIS. Because of the increased risk of periprosthetic fractures in uncemented hip stems, factors associated with the development of BCIS should be weighed against the risk factors for sustaining periprosthetic fractures (poor bone quality, female sex) to balance the risks of fixation method against those of BCIS for each patient.Level of EvidenceLevel III, therapeutic study.     

Despite Improved Survivorship of Uncemented Fixation in Total Knee Arthroplasty for Osteoarthritis,Cemented Fixation Remains the Gold Standard: An Analysis of a National Joint Registry

BackgroundTotal knee arthroplasty (TKA) numbers are increasing worldwide. While cement fixation for both femoral and tibial components is commonly used, alternatives include hybrid and uncemented TKAs. This study aimed to evaluate survivorship, revision rates, and patient-reported outcomes for cemented, hybrid, and uncemented TKAs using New Zealand Joint Registry (NZJR) data.MethodsNZJR data relating to all TKAs performed during the 19 years up to the end of December 2017 were analyzed. Outcomes were assessed using prosthesis survivorship data (including reasons for revision) and Oxford scores at 6 months, 5 years, and 10 years postoperatively.ResultsA total 96,519 primary TKAs were performed during the period examined. Most (91.5%) were fully cemented with 4.8% hybrid and 3.7% uncemented. Mean Oxford scores at 6 months were highest in cemented and lowest in uncemented TKAs (P < .001). However, this was not clinically significant. There was no difference at 5 or 10 years. Ten-year survival rates were 97%, 94.5%, and 95.8% for cemented, uncemented, and hybrid TKAs, respectively. Revision rates were 0.47, 0.74, and 0.52 per 100 component years for cemented, uncemented, and hybrid prostheses, respectively. The revision rate for uncemented prostheses compared with cemented was higher (P < .001). When stratified by age group, there were differences in survival rates between cemented and uncemented groups (P = .001) and hybrid and uncemented groups (P = .038) in patients aged <55 years; between cemented and uncemented groups in those aged 55-64 years (P = .031); and between cemented and hybrid groups in those aged >75 years (P = .004).ConclusionUncemented TKAs had similar patient-reported outcomes but higher revision rates and worse survivorship compared with hybrid or fully cemented TKAs.     

Long-Term Mortality Trends After Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty

Background

Long-term mortality following primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is lower than the general population. However, it is unknown whether this is true in the setting of revision TKA. We examined long-term mortality trends following revision TKA.

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.     

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.     

Revision Joint Arthroplasty and Renal Transplant: A Matched Control Cohort Study

BackgroundThere is little literature concerning clinical outcomes following revision joint arthroplasty in solid organ transplant recipients. The aims of this study are to (1) analyze postoperative outcomes and mortality following revision hip and knee arthroplasty in renal transplant recipients (RTRs) compared to non-RTRs and (2) characterize common indications and types of revision procedures among RTRs.MethodsA retrospective Medicare database review identified 1020 RTRs who underwent revision joint arthroplasty (359 revision total knee arthroplasty [TKA] and 661 revision total hip arthroplasty [THA]) from 2005 to 2014. RTRs were compared to their respective matched control groups of nontransplant revision arthroplasty patients for hospital length of stay, readmission, major medical complications, infections, septicemia, and mortality following revision.ResultsRenal transplantation was significantly associated with increased length of stay (6.12 ± 7.86 vs 4.33 ± 4.29, P < .001), septicemia (odds ratio [OR], 2.52; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.83-3.46; P < .001), and 1-year mortality (OR, 2.71; 95% CI, 1.51-4.53; P < .001) following revision TKA. Among revision THA patients, RTR status was associated with increased hospital readmission (OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.03-1.47; P = .023), septicemia (OR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.41-2.34; P < .001), and 1-year mortality (OR, 2.65; 95% CI, 1.88-3.66; P < .001). The most frequent primary diagnoses associated with revision TKA and THA among RTRs were mechanical complications of prosthetic implant.ConclusionPrior renal transplantation among revision joint arthroplasty patients is associated with increased morbidity and mortality when compared to nontransplant recipients.     

Midterm Results of Hybrid Cement Technique in Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty

While the number of revision total knee arthoplasties (TKA) performed in the United States continues to rise annually, controversy exists whether intramedullary stems should be cemented or press-fit. Retrospective analysis of midterm survivorship rate of revision TKA using hybrid stem fixation in 119 patients was performed. Revision was performed predominantly for aseptic loosening (78) and infections (28). Average follow-up was 62 months (range, 46–80). Knee Society Pain and Function scores improved from 39 and 58 to 68 and 79 (P < .05). Fifty-eight tibial offsets and 28 femoral offsets were utilized. Three knees (2.5%) required revision without any cases of aseptic loosening. Radiographic complete or progressively advanced (> 2 mm) radiolucent lines were not observed in any patient. At mid-term follow-up, revision hybrid TKA provides excellent fixation with extremely low rates of aseptic loosening and avoids the inherent complications of extensive intramedullary cement.     

Tumor Endoprosthesis Revision Rates Increase With Peri-Operative Chemotherapy But Are Reduced With the Use of Cemented Implant Fixation

Chemotherapy may reduce osseointegration of tumor endoprosthesis, while delaying chemotherapy may reduce survival. We studied the effects of chemotherapy and cemented fixation on tumor endoprosthesis survivorship with a retrospective analysis of 50 consecutive patients receiving lower limb salvage surgery. We compared rates of radiographic loosening/revision and effect of cement fixation between chemotherapy/no chemotherapy cohorts. Chemotherapy increased the total revision rate (HR = 3.8 [1–14], P = 0.033), but did not affect aseptic loosening. Cement fixation reduced revision for loosening (HR = 0.09 (0.008–0.98),P = 0.012) and showed less radiographic loosening (HR = 0.09 (0.02–0.51),P = 0.00066). Cement fixation had lower rates of revision for loosening and radiographic loosening regardless of whether chemotherapy was given. We conclude that for these implants, cement fixation provides superior results to uncemented fixation.     

Modular Tibial Stem Use and Risk of Revision for Aseptic Loosening in Cemented Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty

BackgroundModular tibial stem extensions in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) are designed to reduce the risk of aseptic loosening of the tibial base plate. However, these implants add significant cost and an evaluation of their effectiveness in reducing this risk of loosening has not been studied in a large cohort. We sought to evaluate modular tibial stem utilization in primary TKA.MethodsWe conducted a cohort study using our integrated healthcare system’s Total Joint Replacement Registry. Patients who underwent cemented primary TKA were identified (2009-2019). Propensity scores were used to 1:1 match patients without to those with a stem extension. Cox proportional-hazards regression was used to evaluate the risk for revision due to aseptic loosening.ResultsTen thousand four hundred seventy six TKA with a modular tibial stem were matched to 10,476 TKA without a tibial stem. Stem utilization associated with a lower risk of revision for loosening across all postoperative follow-up (hazard ratio = 0.38, 95% confidence interval = 0.17-0.85).ConclusionIn a matched cohort study, we observed presence of a stem extension was associated with a lower risk of revision for aseptic loosening. Further study to identify specific risk factors for aseptic loosening and confirm the findings presented here are warranted.Level of EvidenceLevel III.     

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.     

The Effect of Tourniquet Use and Sterile Carbon Dioxide Gas Bone Preparation on Cement Penetration in Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty

BackgroundTourniquetless total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is experiencing resurgence in popularity due to potential pain control benefits. Furthermore, optimal cement technique and implant fixation remain paramount to long-term cemented TKA success, as aseptic loosening continues to be a leading cause of revision. The purpose of this study is to determine how tourniquet use and/or novel bone preparation using sterile, compressed carbon dioxide (CO₂) gas affected cement penetration in TKA.MethodsA retrospective review was performed on 303 consecutive primary TKAs with the same implant in 3 groups: (1) a tourniquet without sterile CO₂ compressed gas used for bone preparation, (2) no tourniquet with CO₂ gas, and (3) tourniquet use and CO₂ gas bone preparation. Cement penetration was measured on radiographs by two independent, blinded raters across 7 zones defined by the Knee Society Radiographic Evaluation System.ResultsThe 3 groups did not differ on age, body mass index, or gender (P ≥ .1). Cement penetration was greater in 6 of 7 zones with significantly greater cement penetration in 3 zones (tibial anteroposterior zone 2, femoral lateral zones 3A and 3P) in groups that utilized CO₂ gas bone preparation compared to the tourniquet only group (P ≤ .039).ConclusionBone prepared with CO₂ gas showed significantly more cement penetration in 3 zones with greater cancellous bone. The results suggest that use of CO₂ gas bone preparation may achieve greater cement penetration than using a tourniquet with lavage only.