Effects of implant precoating and fat contamination on the stability of the tibial baseplate.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 5% of primary total knee arthroplasty patients require revision within 10 years, often due to distal component loosening. Application of a thin layer of PMMA cement as precoating on the tibial component aims to prevent aseptic loosening. This study investigates the impact of precoating and fat contamination on tibial baseplate stability. METHODS: Two groups of NexGen® stemmed tibial implants (size 4) were studied: Option implants (N = 12) and PMMA Precoat implants (N = 12). Each implant design was divided into two subgroups, (N = 6), with one subgroup featuring bone marrow fat at the implant-cement interface and the other without contamination. In a mechanical testing machine, the implants underwent uniaxial loading for 20,000 cycles, while recording vertical micromotion and migration of the tibial baseplates. Subsequently, a push-out test assessed fixation strength at the cement interfaces. Results were compared using non-parametric statistics and presented as median and min-to-max ranges. RESULTS: Option implants exhibited higher micromotion in dry conditions compared to precoated implants (p = 0.03). Under contamination, both designs demonstrated similar micromotion values. Fixation strength did not significantly differ between designs under dry, uncontaminated conditions (p > 0.99). However, under contaminated conditions, the failure load for the non-coated Option implant was nearly half that of the uncontaminated counterparts (3517 N, 2603-4367 N vs 7531 N, 5163-9000 N; p = 0.002). Precoat implants displayed less susceptibility to fat contamination (p = 0.30). CONCLUSION: NexGen® implant PMMA precoating might reduce the risk of aseptic loosening and revision surgery in case of eventual bone-marrow fat contamination.

Did a New Design of the Oxford Unicompartmental Knee Prosthesis Result in Improved Survival? A Study From the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register 2012-2021.

BACKGROUND: Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) has generally shown higher revision rates than TKA, and this is particularly true for the femoral component. A twin-peg femoral component (Oxford Partial) has replaced the single-peg version (Oxford Phase III) of the widely used Oxford medial UKA, with the aim of improving femoral component fixation. The introduction of the Oxford Partial Knee also included a fully uncemented option. However, there has been relatively little evidence regarding the effect of these changes on implant survival and revision diagnoses from groups not associated with the implant design. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: Using data from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register, we asked: (1) Has the 5-year implant survival (free from revision for any cause) improved with the medial Oxford unicompartmental knee after the introduction of new designs? (2) Did the causes of revision change between the old and new designs? (3) Is there a difference in risk for specific revision causes between the uncemented and cemented versions of the new design? METHODS: We performed a registry-based observational study using data from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register, a nationwide, mandatory and governmental registry with a high reporting rate. Between 2012 and 2021, 7549 Oxford UKAs were performed, and 105 were excluded due to combinations of the three designs, lateral compartment replacement, or hybrid fixation, leaving 908 cemented Oxford Phase III single-peg (used from 2012 to 2017), 4715 cemented Oxford Partial twin-peg (used from 2012 to 2021), and 1821 uncemented Oxford Partial twin-peg (used from 2014 to 2021), UKAs available for the analysis. The Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression multivariate analysis were used to find the 5-year implant survival and the risk of revision (hazard ratio), when adjusting for age, gender, diagnosis, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, and time period. The risk of revision for any cause and the risk of revision for specific causes were compared, first for the older with the two new designs, and second for the cemented with the uncemented version of the new design. Revision was defined as any operation exchanging or removing implant parts. RESULTS: The 5-year Kaplan-Meier overall implant survival (free from revision for any cause) for the medial Oxford Partial unicompartmental knee did not improve over the study period. The 5-year Kaplan-Meier survival was different (p = 0.03) between the groups: it was 92% (95% confidence interval [CI] 90% to 94%) for the cemented Oxford III, 94% (95% CI 93% to 95%) for the cemented Oxford Partial, and 94% (95% CI 92% to 95%) for the uncemented Oxford Partial. However, the overall risk of revision during the first 5 years was not different between the groups (Cox regression HR 0.8 [95% CI 0.6 to 1.0]; p = 0.09 and 1.0 [95% CI 0.7 to 1.4]; p = 0.89 for the cemented Oxford Partial and the uncemented Oxford Partial, respectively, compared with cemented Oxford III [HR 1]). The uncemented Oxford Partial had a higher risk of revision for infection (HR 3.6 [95% CI 1.2 to 10.5]; p = 0.02) compared with the cemented Oxford III. The uncemented Oxford Partial had a lower risk of revision for pain (HR 0.5 [95% CI 0.2 to 1.0]; p = 0.045) and instability (HR 0.3 [95% CI 0.1 to 0.9]; p = 0.03) compared with the cemented Oxford III. The cemented Oxford Partial had a lower risk of revision for aseptic femoral loosening (HR 0.3 [95% CI 0.1 to 1.0]; p = 0.04) compared with the cemented Oxford III. When comparing the uncemented and cemented versions of the new design, the uncemented Oxford Partial had a higher risk of revision for periprosthetic fracture (HR 15 [95% CI 4 to 54]; p = 0.001) and infection within the first year (HR 3.0 [95% CI 1.5 to 5.7]; p = 0.001) than the cemented Oxford Partial. CONCLUSION: Considering that we found no difference in overall risk of revision during the first 5 years but we found a higher risk of revision for infection, periprosthetic fracture, and higher per implant cost, we currently would recommend against the use of uncemented Oxford Partial over the cemented Oxford Partial or the cemented Oxford III. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Association of perioperative thromboprophylaxis on revision rate due to infection and aseptic loosening in primary total hip arthroplasty - new evidence from the Nordic Arthroplasty Registry Association (NARA).

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Results regarding the impact of anticoagulants on revision rate are conflicting. We examined the association between the use of low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) or non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) as thromboprophylaxis after primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) and the revision rate due to infection, aseptic loosening, and all causes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a cohort study (n = 53,605) based on prospectively collected data from the national hip arthroplasty registries from Denmark and Norway. The outcome was time to revision due to infection, aseptic loosening, and all causes, studied separately. Kaplan-Meier (KM) survival analysis and a Cox proportional hazard model was used to estimate implant survival and cause-specific hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) adjusting for age, sex, Charlson Comorbidity Index, fixation type, start, and duration of thromboprophylaxis, and preoperative use of Vitamin K antagonists, NOAC, aspirin, and platelet inhibitors as confounders. RESULTS: We included 40,451 patients in the LMWH group and 13,154 patients in the NOAC group. Regarding revision due to infection, the 1-year and 5-year KM survival was 99% in both the LMWH group and in the NOAC group. During the entire follow-up period, the adjusted HR for revision due to infection was 0.9 (CI 0.7-1.1), 1.6 (CI 1.3-2.1) for aseptic loosening, and 1.2 (CI 1.1-1.4) for all-cause revision for the NOAC compared with the LMWH group. The absolute differences in revision rates between the groups varied from 0.2% to 1%. INTERPRETATION: Compared with LMWH, NOACs were associated with a slightly lower revision rate due to infection, but higher revisions rates due to aseptic loosening and all-cause revision. The absolute differences between groups are small and most likely not clinically relevant. In addition, the observed associations might partly be explained by selection bias and unmeasured confounding, and should be a topic for further research.

Personalized estimation of one-year mortality risk after elective hip or knee arthroplasty for osteoarthritis.

AIMS: To develop and validate patient-centred algorithms that estimate individual risk of death over the first year after elective joint arthroplasty surgery for osteoarthritis. METHODS: A total of 763,213 hip and knee joint arthroplasty episodes recorded in the National Joint Registry for England and Wales (NJR) and 105,407 episodes from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register were used to model individual mortality risk over the first year after surgery using flexible parametric survival regression. RESULTS: The one-year mortality rates in the NJR were 10.8 and 8.9 per 1,000 patient-years after hip and knee arthroplasty, respectively. The Norwegian mortality rates were 9.1 and 6.0 per 1,000 patient-years, respectively. The strongest predictors of death in the final models were age, sex, body mass index, and American Society of Anesthesiologists grade. Exposure variables related to the intervention, with the exception of knee arthroplasty type, did not add discrimination over patient factors alone. Discrimination was good in both cohorts, with c-indices above 0.76 for the hip and above 0.70 for the knee. Time-dependent Brier scores indicated appropriate estimation of the mortality rate (≤ 0.01, all models). CONCLUSION: Simple demographic and clinical information may be used to calculate an individualized estimation for one-year mortality risk after hip or knee arthroplasty (https://jointcalc.shef.ac.uk). These models may be used to provide patients with an estimate of the risk of mortality after joint arthroplasty. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2020;9(11):808-820.

No Increase in Survival for 36-mm versus 32-mm Femoral Heads in Metal-on-polyethylene THA: A Registry Study.

BACKGROUND: During the past decade, the 32-mm head has replaced the 28-mm head as the most common head size used in primary THA in many national registries, and the use of 36-mm heads has also increased. However, it is unclear whether 32-mm and 36-mm heads decrease the revision risk in metal-on-polyethylene (MoP) THA compared with 28-mm heads. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) In the setting of the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association database, does the revision risk for any reason differ among 28-, 32-, and 36-mm head sizes in patients undergoing surgery with MoP THA? (2) Does the revision risk resulting from dislocation decrease with increasing head diameter (28-36 mm) in patients undergoing surgery with MoP THA in the same registry? METHODS: Data were derived from the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association database, a collaboration among the national arthroplasty registries of Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden. Patients with primary osteoarthritis who had undergone primary THA with a 28-, 32-, or 36-mm MoP bearing from 2003 to 2014 were included. Patients operated on with dual-mobility cups were excluded. In patients with bilateral THA, only the first operated hip was included. After applying the inclusion criteria, the number of patients and THAs with a complete data set was determined to be 186,231, which accounted for 51% of all hips (366,309) with primary osteoarthritis operated on with THA of any head size and bearing type during the study observation time. Of the included patients, 60% (111,046 of 186,231) were women, the mean age at surgery was 70 (± 10) years, and the median followup was 4.5 years (range, 0-14 years). A total of 101,094 patients had received a 28-mm, 57,853 a 32-mm, and 27,284 a 36-mm head with 32 mm used as the reference group. The revision of any component for any reason was the primary outcome and revision for dislocation was the secondary outcome. Very few patients are estimated to be lost to followup because emigration in the population of interest (older than 65-70 years) is rare. A Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to estimate THA survival for each group, whereas Cox regression models were fitted to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for THA revision comparing the 28- and 36-mm head diameters with the 32-mm head diameters adjusting for age, sex, year of surgery, type of cup and stem fixation, polyethylene type (crosslinked versus conventional), and surgical approach. RESULTS: In the adjusted Cox regression model, there was no difference in the adjusted risk for revision for any reason between patients with 28-mm (HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.97-0.16) and 32-mm heads, whereas the risk of revision was higher for patients with 36-mm heads (HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.04-1.26) compared with patients with 32-mm heads. Patients with 28-mm heads had a higher risk of revision for dislocation (HR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.38-1.98) compared with 32 mm, whereas there was no difference between patients with 36-mm (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.70-1.02) and 32-mm heads. CONCLUSIONS: After adjusting for relevant confounding variables, we found no benefits for 32-mm heads against 28 mm in terms of overall revision risk. However, when dislocation risk is considered, 32-mm heads would be a better option, because they had a lower risk of revision resulting from dislocation. There were no benefits with the use of 36-mm heads over 32 mm, because the transition from 32 to 36 mm was associated with a higher risk of revision for all reasons, which was not accompanied by a decrease in the risk of revision resulting from dislocation. The use of 32-mm heads appears to offer the best compromise between joint stability and other reasons for revision in MoP THA. Further studies with longer followup, especially of 36-mm heads, as well as better balance of confounders across head sizes and better control of patient-related risk factors for THA revision are needed. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Incidence and Predictive Factors for Orthopedic Surgery in Patients with Psoriatic Arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the incidence of orthopedic procedures in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and how patient characteristics, time of diagnosis, and treatment affect the need for surgery. METHODS: We reviewed the medical history of 1432 patients with possible PsA at Haukeland University Hospital in Bergen, Norway. There were 590 patients (mean age 49 yrs, 52% women) who had sufficient journal information and a confirmed diagnosis of PsA, and who were included in the present study. Relevant orthopedic procedures were obtained from the hospital's administrative patient records. Survival analyses were completed to evaluate the effect of different factors such as year of diagnosis, age, sex, radiographic changes, disease activity, and treatment, on the risk of surgery. RESULTS: There were 171 procedures (25% synovectomies, 15% arthrodesis, and 53% prostheses) performed on 117 patients. These factors all increased the risk of surgery: female sex [relative risk (RR) 1.9, p = 0.001], age ≥ 70 years at diagnosis (RR 2.4, p = 0.001), arthritis in initial radiographs (RR 2.2, p = 0.006), and maximum erythrocyte sedimentation rate 30-59 mm/h (RR 1.6, p = 0.026). Time period of diagnosis had no effect on the outcome. In a subanalysis of surgery exclusive of hip and knee arthroplasty, diagnosis in earlier years (1954-1985 vs 1999-2011) was a risk factor (RR 2.1, p = 0.042). Antirheumatic treatment changed significantly over time. CONCLUSION: There were 20% of patients with PsA who needed surgery. We found that the prognosis of patients with PsA did not change regarding the risk of orthopedic surgery, despite the change in treatment. A possible explanation is the increase in large joint replacements in the general population.