Knee Fracture Increases TKA Risk After Initial Fracture Treatment and Throughout Life.

BACKGROUND: Knee fractures may lead to post-traumatic knee osteoarthritis and subsequent TKA in some patients. However, absolute risk estimates and risk factors for TKA in patients with knee fractures compared with those of the general population remain largely unknown. Such knowledge would help establish the treatment burden and direct patient counseling after a knee fracture is sustained. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What is the short-term risk of TKA after knee fracture? (2) What is the long-term risk of TKA after knee fracture? (3) What are the risk factors for TKA in patients with knee fractures? METHODS: A nationwide 20-year, matched-case comparison cohort study of prospectively collected data from the Danish National Patient Registry included all patients at least 15 years old with International Classification of Diseases, 10th revision codes DS724, DS820, or DS821 (knee fractures) on the date their knee fracture was registered. Each patient with a knee fracture was matched (by sex and age) to five people without knee fractures from the general Danish population on the date the knee fracture patient's knee fracture was registered (population controls). Patients with knee fractures and people in the population control group were followed from the date the knee fracture patient's knee fracture was registered to the date of TKA, amputation, knee fusion, emigration, death, or end of follow-up in April 2018. TKA risks for patients with knee fractures versus those for population controls and TKA risk factors in patients with knee fractures were estimated using hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CIs. A total of 48,791 patients with knee fractures (median age 58 years [interquartile range 41-73]; 58% were female) were matched to 263,593 people in the population control group. RESULTS: The HR for TKA in patients with knee fractures compared with population controls was 3.74 (95% CI 3.44 to 4.07; p < 0.01) in the first 3 years after knee fracture. Among knee fracture patients, the risk of undergoing TKA was 2% (967 of 48,791) compared with 0.5% (1280 of 263,593) of people in the population control group. After the first 3 years, the HR was 1.59 (95% CI 1.46 to 1.71) and the number of patients with knee fractures with TKA events divided by the number at risk was 2% (849 of 36,272), compared with 1% (2395 of 180,418) of population controls. During the 20-year study period, 4% of patients with knee fractures underwent TKA compared with 1% of population controls. Risk factors for TKA in patients with knee fractures were: primary knee osteoarthritis (OA) versus no primary knee OA (HR 9.57 [95% CI 5.39 to 16.98]), surgical treatment with external fixation versus open reduction and internal fixation and reduction only (HR 1.92 [95 % CI 1.01 to 3.66]), proximal tibia fracture versus patellar fracture (HR 1.75 [95 % CI 1.30 to 2.36]), and distal femur fracture versus patellar fracture (HR 1.68 [95 % CI 1.08 to 2.64]). Surgical treatment of knee fractures was also a risk factor for TKA. The HRs for TKA in patients with knee fractures who were surgically treated versus those who were treated non-surgically were 2.05 (95% CI 1.83 to 2.30) in the first 5 years after knee fracture and 1.19 (95% CI 1.01 to 1.41) after 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with knee fractures have a 3.7 times greater risk of TKA in the first 3 years after knee fracture, and the risk remains 1.6 times greater after 3 years and throughout their lifetimes. Primary knee OA, surgical treatment of knee fractures, external fixation, proximal tibia fractures, and distal femur fractures are TKA risk factors. These risk estimates and risk factors highlight the treatment burden of knee fractures, building a foundation for future studies to further counsel patients on their risk of undergoing TKA based on patient-, fracture-, and treatment-specific factors. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, prognostic study.

Reduced Revision Risk for Dual-Mobility Cup in Total Hip Replacement Due to Hip Fracture: A Matched-Pair Analysis of 9,040 Cases from the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association (NARA).

BACKGROUND: The dual-mobility acetabular cup (DMC) has an additional bearing consisting of a mobile polyethylene component between the prosthetic head and the outer metal shell. This design has gained popularity in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) and in primary treatment of femoral neck fractures with the anticipation of a reduced risk of THA instability. Our primary aim was to evaluate the overall revision risk of these cups on the basis of data from the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association (NARA) database, and our secondary aim was to study specific revision causes including dislocation. METHODS: Propensity score matching for age, sex, fixation of the cup and stem, and the year of surgery (2001 to 2014) was used to match 4,520 hip fractures treated with a DMC to 4,520 hip fractures treated with conventional THA (control group). Competing risk regression analyses with revision or death as the end point were used. Revision was defined as a secondary surgical procedure in which any component of the implant was removed or exchanged. In addition, revision of the cup was analyzed. RESULTS: The DMCs had a lower risk of revision compared with conventional THA, with an adjusted hazard ratio (AHR) of 0.75 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.62 to 0.92). This was consistent after adjusting for surgical approach. DMCs had a lower risk of revision due to dislocation (AHR = 0.45 [95% CI = 0.30 to 0.68]) but we found no difference regarding revision for deep infection. Revision of the acetabular component, both in general and due to dislocation, was more frequent with the use of conventional cups. The risk of death was higher in the DMC group (AHR = 1.49 [95% CI = 1.40 to 1.59]). CONCLUSIONS: The use of a DMC as primary treatment for hip fracture was associated with a lower risk of revision in general and due to dislocation in particular. The total number of DMCs analyzed (4,520) likely exceeds any cohort of DMC-treated fractures published to date. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.