Is cement mantle thickness a primary cause of aseptic tibial loosening following primary total knee arthroplasty?

BACKGROUND: Aseptic tibial loosening following primary total knee replacement is one of the leading causes of long-term failure. Cement mantle thickness has been implicated as a source of aseptic tibial loosening. Therefore, the following study was designed to determine (1) what is the cement mantle thickness in patients that develop aseptic tibial loosening, and (2) is there a difference in cement mantle thickness based on the interface of failure? METHOD: This retrospective cohort included 216 patients revised for aseptic tibial loosening. Patient demographics, operative data, and clinical outcomes were recorded. A preoperative radiographic assessment was performed to determine the interface of failure and the thickness of the cement mantle using the Knee Society Radiographic Evaluation System zones. RESULTS: The average patient age was 65 years and body mass index was 33.7 kg/m2. 203 patients demonstrated radiographic failure at the implant-cement interface and 13 patients demonstrated failure at the cement-bone interface. The average cement mantle thickness of each radiographic zone for the entire cohort on the AP and lateral views was 4.4 and 4.5 mm, respectively. The average cement mantle thickness of patients that developed failure at the implant-cement interface was significantly greater than patients that failed at the cement-bone interface in each radiographic zone (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients that develop implant loosening at the cement-bone interface were noted to have a significantly decreased cement mantle compared to patients that failed at the implant-cement interface. Methods for decreasing tibial implant loosening should likely focus on improving the fixation at the implant-cement interface.

The Efficacy and Safety of Corticosteroids in Total Joint Arthroplasty: A Direct Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Corticosteroids are commonly used intraoperatively to treat pain and reduce opioid consumption and nausea associated with primary total joint arthroplasty (TJA). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of corticosteroids in primary TJA to support the combined clinical practice guidelines of the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons, American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, Hip Society, Knee Society, and the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Management. METHODS: The MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched for studies published before February 2020 on corticosteroids in TJA. All included studies underwent qualitative and quantitative homogeneity testing followed by a systematic review and direct comparison meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of corticosteroids. RESULTS: Critical appraisal of 1,581 publications revealed 23 studies regarded as the best available evidence for analysis. Intraoperative dexamethasone reduces postoperative pain, opioid consumption, and nausea and vomiting. Multiple doses lead to further reduction in pain, opioid consumption, nausea and vomiting. There is insufficient evidence on the risk of adverse events with perioperative dexamethasone in TJA. CONCLUSION: Strong evidence supports the use of a single dose or multiple doses of intravenous dexamethasone to reduce postoperative pain, opioid consumption, nausea and vomiting after primary TJA. There is insufficient evidence on perioperative dexamethasone in primary TJA to determine the optimal dose, number of doses, or risk of postoperative adverse events.

Chitranjan S. Ranawat Award: Motion During Total Knee Cementing Significantly Decreases Tibial Implant Fixation Strength.

BACKGROUND: Aseptic tibial loosening following primary total knee arthroplasty persists despite technique and device-related advancements. The mechanisms for this mode of failure are not well understood. We hypothesized that knee movement while the cement was curing dispersed lipids at the implant-cement interface and would result in decreased tibial fixation strength. METHODS: A cadaveric study was performed utilizing 32 torso-to-toe specimens (64 knees). Four contemporary total knee arthroplasty designs were evaluated. Each implant design was randomly assigned to a cadaveric specimen pair with side-to-side randomization. Specimen densitometry was recorded. Each tibial implant was cemented using a standard technique. On one side, the tibial component was held without motion following impaction until complete cement polymerization. The contralateral knee tibial implant was taken through gentle range of motion and stability assessment 7 minutes after cement mixing. Axial tibial pull-out strength and interface failure examination was performed on each specimen. RESULTS: The average pull-out strength for the no motion cohort (5,462 N) exceeded the motion cohort (4,473 N) (P = .001). The mean pull-out strength between implant designs in the no motion cohort varied significantly (implant A: 7,230 N, B: 5,806 N, C: 5,325 N, D 3,486 N; P = .007). Similarly, the motion cohort inter-implant variance was significant (P ≤ .001). Intra-implant pull-out strength was significantly higher in implant A than D. The average pull-out strength was significantly lower in specimens that failed at the implant-cement interface vs bone failures (4,089 ± 2,158 N vs 5,960 ± 2,010 N, P < .0025). CONCLUSION: Knee motion during cement polymerization is associated with significant decreases in tibial implant fixational strength. Reduction in implant pull-out strength was identified with each implant design with motion and varied between designs. Across all tested designs, we recommend limiting motion while cementing the tibial implant to improve fixation strength.

Varus Collapse in Total Knee Arthroplasty: Does Fixation or Bone Fail First?

INTRODUCTION: Aseptic tibial loosening is now considered the most common reason that total knee arthroplasties (TKA) fail long term. There are unique subsets of patients that fail into varus alignment of the tibial tray with collapse of the medial proximal tibia. It is currently unknown if the implant fixation fails first or if the proximal medial tibia collapses first. MATERIALS: We performed a retrospective analysis of 88 patients that were revised at our institution secondary to aseptic varus collapse of the proximal tibia. Two fellowship-trained arthroplasty surgeons performed a retrospective analysis on sequential precollapse radiographs in each patient to determine which failed first: the implant fixation (implant-cement or cement-bone interface) or the medial proximal tibia. DISCUSSION: 36/88 (40.9%) patients had a series of precollapse radiographs that could be reviewed. Failure at the implant-cement interface before varus collapse in 23 vs 22 patients, failure at the implant-cement and cement-bone interface before varus collapse in two patients, and contemporaneous failure at the implant-cement interface and varus collapse in 11 vs 12 patients were identified by reviewers one and two, respectively. CONCLUSION: The most frequent mechanism of failure identified was failure of the implant-cement interface followed by subsequent medial tibial varus collapse. Improving implant fixation may decrease the incidence of this unique failure mechanism. We advocate the use of supplemental stem fixation in high-risk patients and optimal cement techniques for all patients as methods of potentially avoiding tibial varus collapse, one of the most frequent modes of long-term failure.

Effect of intraoperative treatment options on hip joint stability following total hip arthroplasty.

Dislocation remains the leading indication for revision of total hip arthroplasty (THA). The objective of this study was to use a computational model to compare the overall resistance to both anterior and posterior dislocation for the available THA constructs commonly considered by surgeons attempting to produce a stable joint. Patient-specific musculoskeletal models of THA patients performing activities consistent with anterior and posterior dislocation were developed to calculate joint contact forces and joint positions used for simulations of dislocation in a finite element model of the implanted hip that included an experimentally calibrated hip capsule representation. Dislocations were then performed with consideration of offset using +5 and +9 offset, iteratively with three lipped liner variations in jump distance (10°, 15°, and 20° lips), a size 40 head, and a dual-mobility construct. Dislocation resistance was quantified as the moment required to dislocate the hip and the integral of the moment-flexion angle (dislocation energy). Increasing head diameter increased resistive moment on average for anterior and posterior dislocation by 22% relative to a neutral configuration. A lipped liner resulted in increases in the resistive moment to posterior dislocation of 9%, 19%, and 47% for 10°, 15°, and 20° lips, a sensitivity of approximately 2.8 Nm/mm of additional jump distance. A dual-mobility acetabular design resulted in an average 38% increase in resistive moment and 92% increase in dislocation energy for anterior and posterior dislocation. A quantitative understanding of tradeoffs in the dislocation risk inherent to THA construct options is valuable in supporting surgical decision making.

Where Is the "Weak Link" of Fixation in Contemporary Cemented Total Knee Replacements?

BACKGROUND: Aseptic tibial loosening is a frequent cause of long-term failure following primary cemented total knee replacement. Failure of the tibial implant can occur at the implant-cement interface or at the cement-bone interface. Currently, it is unknown at which interface failure occurs in cases of aseptic tibial loosening. The following study was designed to determine which interface represents the "weak link" for tibial implant fixation. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of 149 patients who were revised secondary to aseptic tibial loosening at our institution from 2005 to 2017. Operative reports and radiographs were reviewed on each patient to determine the location and pattern of fixation failure. RESULTS: Implant failure was more prevalent at the implant-cement than cement-bone interface, 140/149 (94.0%) vs 9/149 (6.0%). Additionally, we noted 2 distinct patterns of failure in patients that loosened at the implant-cement interface. Ninety of 140 (64.3%) patients developed varus collapse pattern of failure. Forty-nine of 140 (35.0%) patients developed failure between the implant-cement interface without angulation. All 149 patients had heterotopic bone formation anterior to the tibial baseplate, which was consistent regardless of which interface failed. CONCLUSION: The most frequent interface failure identified in our study was at the implant-cement interface, 140/149 (94.0%). This finding has substantial clinical ramifications. Because failure was predominantly at the implant-cement interface there may be design opportunities for increasing implant fixation to cement. Implants with improved undersurface tibial tray features may be necessary to mitigate the risk of failure at this interface, especially in overly active patients or those with elevated body mass indices.

Anatomic Total Hip Component Position Is More Reproducible With the Direct Anterior Approach Using Intraoperative Fluoroscopy.

BACKGROUND: Total hip arthroplasty (THA) has demonstrated excellent results regardless of the surgical approach. However, the approach used may be a factor in final positioning of implants. We hypothesized that the direct anterior approach (DAA) with fluoroscopy would be associated with more anatomic implant positioning than the posterior approach (PA). METHODS: A retrospective review of 200 patients was performed. One hundred patients underwent THA utilizing the PA, and 100 patients, with the DAA. All patients had an anterior-posterior pelvis radiograph preoperatively and postoperatively with a magnification marker present to standardize each radiograph. Exclusion criteria included contralateral THA or any pelvic or femoral deformity. RESULTS: Preoperative radiographs demonstrated identical cohorts with respect to leg length, femoral offset, and total offset. Postoperatively, the DAA achieved more accurate anatomic restoration of leg length (1.6 mm vs 5.5 mm; P < .0001), femoral offset (4.8 mm vs 9.3 mm; P < .0001), and total offset (0.5 mm vs 4.7 mm; P < .0001) compared with the PA. Ideal cup abduction and anteversion were significantly superior to the DAA (96% vs 78%, P = .0002, and 69% vs 24%, P < .0001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first to compare anatomic implant positioning between patients undergoing THA with these 2 approaches. All parameters were significantly closer to anatomic implant positioning with the DAA. There are at least 2 potential explanations for this: (1) The DAA implant positioning was performed under fluoroscopic guidance, whereas the PA was not. (2) The PA disrupts the posterior capsule and external rotators, and therefore, increased offset or leg length may be necessary to achieve comparable hip stability with the DAA.

The Direct Anterior Approach Total Hip Arthroplasty Reliably Achieves "Safe Zones" for Combined Anteversion.

BACKGROUND: In total hip arthroplasty (THA), component position is critical to avoid instability and improve longevity. Appropriate combined femoral and acetabular component anteversion is important for improved THA stability and increased impingement-free range of motion. In direct anterior THA (DA-THA), concern has been expressed regarding the accuracy of femoral component positioning. This study seeks to quantify acetabular, femoral, and combined component orientation relative to the accepted "safe zones" in patients who have undergone DA-THA. METHODS: Twenty-nine patients who had THA performed via direct anterior approach had postoperative computerized tomography scans done to assess femoral anteversion. Stem rotational alignment was measured relative to the transepicondylar axis (TEA) and the posterior condylar axis (PCA) of the femur at the knee. Acetabular abduction and version were recorded on anteroposterior pelvis radiographs. RESULTS: The mean stem anteversion was 17.5° (standard deviation = 10.8°) from the TEA and 21.7° (standard deviation = 11.3°) from the PCA. Ten of 30 cups were appropriately anteverted; however, all the cups had appropriate abduction. Combined version when using the TEA resulted in 79% (23/29) of patients within the "safe zone" of 25°-50°. Pearson correlation coefficients were high for both stem anteversion from the TEA (R = 0.96) and PCA (R = 0.98); however, interobserver reliability for combined component anteversion was greater for the TEA (kappa, 0.83 vs 0.65). CONCLUSIONS: Combined anteversion within the "safe zone" was achieved 79% of the time with DA-THA. Interestingly, most of the "excessive" combined anteversion appears to be related to increased anteversion of the acetabular component with only 10 patients within the acetabular cup "safe zone" of 5°-25°.

Acetabular Revision via Direct Anterior Approach-Technical Considerations.

Acetabular implant revision is commonly performed during revision total hip arthroplasty (THA).1 With recent significant increase in the utilization of direct anterior approach for primary THA,2,3 many surgeons familiar with this approach are exploring the direct anterior for revision THA (r-THA) applications. This chapter will specifically address acetabular implant revision via direct anterior approach. The exposure techniques for the acetabulum are described elsewhere in this lecture series. Instead, attention to the mechanics and techniques of acetabular implant revision via direct anterior approach will be stressed.

Kinematic Performance of Gradually Variable Radius Posterior-Stabilized Primary TKA During Various Activities: An In Vivo Study Using Fluoroscopy.

BACKGROUND: Posterior-stabilized total knee arthroplasty (TKA) with gradually variable radii (G-curve) femoral condylar geometry is now available. It is believed that a G-curve design would lead to more mid-flexion stability leading to reduced incidence of paradoxical anterior slide. The objective of this study was to assess the in vivo kinematics for subjects implanted with this type of TKA under various conditions of daily living. METHODS: Tibiofemoral kinematics of 35 patients having posterior-stabilized TKA with G-curve design were analyzed using fluoroscopy while performing three activities: weight-bearing deep knee bend, gait, and walking down a ramp. The subjects were assessed for range of motion, condylar translation, axial rotation, cam-spine engagement, and condylar lift-off. RESULTS: The average weight-bearing flexion during deep knee bend was 111.4°. On average, the subjects exhibited 5.4 mm of posterior rollback of the lateral condyle and 2.0 mm of the medial condyle from full extension to maximum knee flexion. The femur consistently rotated externally with flexion, and the average axial rotation was 5.2°. Overall movement of the condyles during gait and ramp-down activity was small. No incidence of condylar lift-off was observed. CONCLUSION: Subjects in this study experienced consistent magnitudes of posterior femoral rollback and external rotation of the femur with weight-bearing flexion. The variation is similar to that previously reported for normal knee where the lateral condyle moves consistently posterior compared to the medial condyle. Subjects experienced low overall mid-flexion paradoxical anterior sliding and no incidence of condylar lift-off leading to mid-flexion stability.

Peri-implant fracture after dual-plating knee arthrodesis for failed total knee arthroplasty: case series.

Knee arthrodesis is an option in the setting of failed total knee arthroplasty. Dual-plate fixation is a described technique to obtain knee fusion in this scenario. Literature on the complications of knee arthrodesis with dual-plate constructs is limited. We present 3 cases who underwent dual-plate knee arthrodesis complicated by peri-implant femur fracture.