No Reduction in Revision Risk Associated With Highly Cross-linked Polyethylene With or Without Antioxidants Over Conventional Polyetheylene in TKA: An Analysis From the American Joint Replacement Registry.

BACKGROUND: Highly cross-linked polyethylene (HXLPE) can improve wear properties in TKA, but it can also lead to decreased mechanical properties. Antioxidants were added to HXLPE to improve its mechanical properties while retaining the improved wear characteristics. However, it remains unclear whether these modifications to conventional polytheylene used in TKA have resulted in a change in the revision risk. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We used American Joint Replacement Registry data to ask: (1) Is there a difference in all-cause revision in patients who underwent TKA using HXLPE with or without an antioxidant doping compared with conventional polyethylene? (2) Is there a difference in revision for aseptic failure in patients who underwent TKA using HXLPE with or without an antioxidant doping compared with conventional polyethylene? METHODS: We analyzed American Joint Replacement Registry data from 2012 to 2019. We identified 339,366 primary TKAs over the study period in patients older than 65 years and linked procedures to supplemental Centers for Medicare & Medicaid data where available. Patient total number of reported comorbidities, gender, age, region, polyethylene characteristics, procedure dates, and indication for revision were recorded. Median follow-up was 34 months. We compared HXLPE with or without antioxidants to conventional polyethylene. Event-free percent survival curves and Cox proportional hazard regression modeling was used for all-cause revision and revision for aseptic failure. RESULTS: Compared with conventional polyethylene, there was no difference in all-cause revision with HXLPE with an antioxidant (HR 1.06 [95% CI 0.98 to 1.14]; p = 0.13) or HXLPE without an antioxidant (HR 1.04 [95% CI 0.97 to 1.11]; p = 0.28). Compared with conventional polyethylene, there was no difference in revision for aseptic failure with HXLPE with an antioxidant (HR 1.07 [95% CI 0.99 to 1.14]; p = 0.08) or HXLPE without an antioxidant (HR 1.03 [95% CI 0.97 to 1.01]; p = 0.30). CONCLUSION: We found no difference in revision risk between HXLPE with or without an antioxidant and conventional polyethylene during this time frame. HXLPE polyethylene, with or without an antioxidant, should not be widely adopted until or unless it is shown to be superior to conventional polyethylene in TKA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Revision Risk for Total Knee Arthroplasty Polyethylene Designs in Patients 65 Years of Age or Older: An Analysis from the American Joint Replacement Registry.

BACKGROUND: Polyethylene bearing design may influence the risk of revision after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Previous investigations from outside of the United States have suggested the potential for an increased risk of all-cause revision and revision for infection with the use of posterior-stabilized bearings. We examine the risk of revision based on the polyethylene bearing design selection for primary TKA. METHODS: An analysis of the American Joint Replacement Registry (AJRR) data from 2012 to 2019 was performed. We identified all primary TKAs over the study period and linked cases to supplemental U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) data where available. Patient demographic characteristics, polyethylene characteristics, procedure dates, and cause for revision were recorded. Analysis was performed to compare minimally stabilized implants (cruciate-retaining, anterior-stabilized, or pivot bearing designs) with posterior-stabilized implants. Cumulative incidence function (CIF) curves and Cox proportional hazard ratios (HRs) were created for all-cause revision and revision for infection in each group. RESULTS: We identified 305,279 cases with reported minimally stabilized or posterior-stabilized implant characteristics. There were 161,486 cases (52.9%) that utilized posterior-stabilized bearings compared with 143,793 cases (47.1%) with minimally stabilized bearings. For minimally stabilized bearings, 1,693 cases (1.18%) had all-cause revision and 334 cases (0.23%) had revision for infection. For posterior-stabilized bearings, 2,406 cases (1.49%) had all-cause revision and 446 cases (0.28%) had revision for infection. The use of posterior-stabilized bearings had HRs of 1.25 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2 to 1.3; p < 0.0001) for all-cause revision and 1.18 (95% CI, 1.0 to 1.4; p = 0.02) for revision for infection. CONCLUSIONS: Similar to investigations from international registries, we found an increased risk of all-cause revision and revision for infection when using posterior-stabilized bearings in TKA in the United States. Surgeons should consider this finding when considering bearing selection for primary TKA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.