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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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     

High Mortality After Total Knee Arthroplasty Periprosthetic Joint Infection is Related to Preoperative Morbidity and the Disease Process but Not Treatment

BackgroundPeriprosthetic joint infection (PJI) mortality rate is approximately 20%. The etiology for high mortality remains unknown. The objective of this study was to determine whether mortality was associated with preoperative morbidity (frailty), sequalae of treatment, or the PJI disease process itself.MethodsA multicenter observational study was completed comparing 184 patients treated with septic revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) to a control group of 38 patients treated with aseptic revision TKA. Primary outcomes included time and the cause of death. Secondary outcomes included preoperative comorbidities and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCMI) measured preoperatively and at various postoperative timepoints.ResultsThe septic revision TKA cohort experienced earlier mortality compared to the aseptic cohort, with a higher mortality rate at 90 days, 1, 2, and 3 years after index revision surgery (P = .01). There was no significant difference for any single cause of death (P > .05 for each). The mean preoperative CCMI was higher (P = .005) in the septic revision TKA cohort. Both septic and aseptic cohorts experienced a significant increase in CCMI from the preoperative to 3 years postoperative (P < .0001 and P = .002) and time of death (P < .0001 both) timepoints. The septic revision TKA cohort had a higher CCMI 3 years postoperatively (P = .001) and at time of death (P = .046), but not one year postoperatively (P = .119).ConclusionCompared to mortality from aseptic revision surgery, septic revision TKA is associated with earlier mortality, but there is no single specific etiology. As quantified by changes in CCMI, PJI mortality was associated with both frailty and the PJI disease process, but not treatment.     

Superior Survivorship for Posterior Stabilized Versus Constrained Condylar Articulations After Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Retrospective,Comparative Analysis at Short-Term Follow-Up

BackgroundThe decision to use a posterior stabilized (PS) or constrained condylar knee (CCK) articulation in revision total knee arthroplasty (RTKA) has traditionally been based on surgeon preference and knee stability. The purpose of this study is to compare various outcomes and survivorship in RTKA with PS or CCK articulations.MethodsA retrospective comparative study of RTKA with CCK or PS articulations (PS = 106/CCK = 147) was performed with minimum 2-year follow-up. Exclusion criteria were patients with rotating hinged implants or non-CCK/PS constructs. Multivariate logistic regression models were constructed to determine whether implant articulation influenced (1) complications, (2) aseptic loosening, and (3) re-revision. Kaplan-Meier estimates of cumulative implant survival were constructed with revision as the failure variable.ResultsPS articulation was an independent predictor of increased postoperative knee flexion (6.4°, P = .010) and the knee society functional score (10.0, P = .002). Survivorship was significantly reduced for CCK revision articulations when all-cause re-revision was the primary endpoint (P = .0003, log-rank test of equality). The primary reason for re-revision in the CCK cohort was a recurrent/persistent infection of the operative knee (N = 16, 37.2%), followed by aseptic loosening (N = 13, 30.2%). PS articulations conferred a lower likelihood of re-revision (odds ratio [OR] 0.3, P = .001), but articulation design was not associated with complications (OR 0.5, P = .123) or aseptic loosening (OR 2.6, P = .143).ConclusionThe PS articulation when used for appropriate indication conferred superior survivorship for the primary endpoint of all-cause re-revision and overall knee function when compared to the CCK articulation after RTKA. Implant articulation was not a predictor of aseptic loosening or complications.     

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.     

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.     

Preoperative Weight Loss and Postoperative Weight Gain Independently Increase Risk for Revision After Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty

BackgroundThe current American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons (AAHKS) guidelines recommend preoperative weight loss before total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in patients with body mass index (BMI) ≥40 kg/m². However, there is a paucity of evidence on TKA outcomes after preoperative weight loss. This study therefore evaluated predictors of preoperative and postoperative BMI changes and their impact on outcomes after TKA.MethodsThis is a retrospective review of 3058 primary TKAs at an academic institution from 2015 to 2019. BMI was collected on the day of surgery. Preoperative and postoperative BMI at 6 months and 1 year were also obtained. BMI change of ≥5% was considered clinically significant. Mean follow-up was 3.2 years. Patient demographics, acute postoperative outcomes, and all-cause revisions were compared between patients who gained, lost, or maintained weight using univariate and multivariable analyses.ResultsPreoperative weight loss was predictive of postoperative weight gain (P < .001), and preoperative weight gain was predictive of postoperative weight loss (P < .001). Cox regression analysis revealed that ≥5% BMI loss preoperatively increased risk for all-cause revisions (P = .030), while ≥5% BMI gain postoperatively increased risk for prosthetic joint infections (P = .016). Patients who lost significant weight both before and after surgery had the highest risk for all-cause revisions (P = .022).ConclusionWeight gain postoperatively was associated with inferior outcomes. Significant weight loss before surgery led to a “rebound” in weight gain, and independently increased risk for all-cause revision. Therefore, current recommendations for weight loss before TKA in morbidly obese patients should be re-evaluated.     

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.     

Heterotopic Ossification Negatively Influences Range of Motion After Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty

BackgroundThe incidence of heterotopic ossification (HO) after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) varies and is of unclear clinical significance. This study aimed to identify the incidence of HO in patients undergoing revision TKA for either stiffness or aseptic loosening/instability and determine if the presence of HO is associated with inferior absolute range of motion (ROM) and ROM gains.MethodsEighty-seven patients were prospectively enrolled and separated into 2 cohorts to evaluate ROM after revision TKA (2017-2019). Group 1 (N = 40) patients were revised for stiffness, while group 2 (N = 47) patients were revised for either aseptic loosening or instability. Goniometer-measured ROM values were obtained preoperatively and at 6 weeks, 6 months, and 1 year postoperatively. Statistical analysis included a Fisher’s exact test to assess for an association between preoperative HO and final ROM at 1 year after revision TKA.ResultsHO was identified on preoperative radiographs in 17 patients (20%). There was a significantly higher rate of preoperative HO in patients revised for stiffness compared to patients revised for instability or loosening (30% vs 11%; P = .03). Five cases of HO qualitatively identified as most clinically severe were associated with lower ROM at each time point compared to the remainder of HO cases in this study cohort (P < .02).ConclusionThe presence of HO is greater in patients undergoing revision TKA for stiffness. Additionally, HO severity appears to have a major effect on preoperative and postoperative ROM trajectory. This information should help guide patient expectations and highlight the need for a comprehensive, standardized classification system for HO.     

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 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.     

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.     

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.     

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

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