James A. Rand Young Investigator's Award: Questioning the "Nickel Free" Total Knee Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: A study was performed to measure metal ions present in the knee joint after performing a total knee arthroplasty (TKA) with standard cobalt chromium (CoCr) components as well as with "nickel-free" oxidized zirconium femoral and titanium tibial (OxZr/Ti) components. METHODS: Knee joint fluid was collected prior to arthrotomy, and on postoperative day one to determine the amount of metal debris generated when performing a TKA with standard instrumentation from consecutive cases with CoCr components (n = 24) and OxZr/Ti components (n = 16). RESULTS: CoCr implant patients had statistically higher levels of nickel (Ni) (29.7%, P = .033), cobalt (Co), (1,100.7%, P < .0001) and chromium (Cr) (118.9%, P < .0001) postoperatively. The cutting blocks and sawblades do not contain Co, which therefore must have come from the components. The metal ions generated from the sawblades and cutting blocks, therefore, could be discerned from the OxZr/Ti whose components don't contain Co, Cr, or Ni. The OxZr patients had significantly higher Cr (9.5×, P < .001) and Ni (5.1×, P < .001) post-TKA vs pre-TKA; Co levels were not significantly different as expected with the absence of Co in the components (P = .60). The Ni levels generated in performing an Oxinium TKA was 3.3 times higher than when performing a CoCr TKA (1.37 vs. 41 ppb, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The substantial degree of Ni generation resulting from performing a hypoallergenic "nickel-free" TKA calls into questions the rationale of utilizing more expensive lower Ni components on the basis of known or suspected Ni or Cr allergy.

The burden and utility of routine follow-up at one year after primary arthroplasty.

AIMS: Routine surveillance of primary hip and knee arthroplasties has traditionally been performed with office follow-up visits at one year postoperatively. The value of these visits is unclear. The present study aims to determine the utility and burden of routine clinical follow-up at one year after primary arthroplasty to patients and providers. METHODS: All patients (473) who underwent primary total hip (280), hip resurfacing (eight), total knee (179), and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (six) over a nine-month period at a single institution were identified from an institutional registry. Patients were prompted to attend their routine one-year postoperative visit by a single telephone reminder. Patients and surgeons were given questionnaires at the one-year postoperative visit, defined as a clinical encounter occurring at nine to 15 months from the date of surgery, regarding value of the visit. RESULTS: Compliance with routine follow-up at one year was 35%. The response rate was over 80% for all questions in the patient and clinician surveys. Overall, 75% of the visits were for routine surveillance. Patients reported high satisfaction with their visits despite the general time for attendance, including travel, being over four hours. Surgeons found the visits more worthwhile when issues were identified or problems were addressed. CONCLUSION: Patient compliance with follow-up at one year postoperatively after primary hip and knee is low. Routine visits of asymptomatic patients deliver little practical value and represent a large time and cost burden for patients and surgeons. Remote strategies should be considered for routine postoperative surveillance primary hip and knee arthroplasties beyond the acute postoperative period. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(7 Supple B):85-89.

High Prevalence of Radiographic Outliers and Revisions with Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Alignment outcomes and their impact on implant survival following unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) are unclear. The purpose of this study was to assess the implant survival and radiographic outcomes after UKA as well as the impact of component alignment and overhang on implant survival. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of 253 primary fixed-bearing and mobile-bearing medial UKAs from a single academic center. All UKAs were performed by 2 high-volume fellowship-trained arthroplasty surgeons. UKAs comprised <10% of their knee arthroplasty practices, with an average of 14.2 medial UKAs per surgeon per year. Implant survival was assessed. Femoral coronal (FCA), femoral sagittal (FSA), tibial coronal (TCA), and tibial sagittal (TSA) angles as well as implant overhang were radiographically measured. Outliers were defined for FCA (>±10° deviation from neutral), FSA (>15° of flexion), TCA (>±5° deviation from neutral), and TSA (>±5° deviation from 7°). "Far outliers" were an additional >±2° of deviation. Outliers for overhang were identified as >3 mm for anterior overhang, >2 mm for posterior overhang, and >2 mm for medial overhang. RESULTS: Among patients with a failed UKA, revision was performed at an average of 3.7 years (range, 0.03 to 8.7 years). The cumulative revision rate was 14.2%. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis demonstrated 5 and 10-year survival rates of 88.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 82.0% to 91.0%) and 70.0% (95% CI = 56.0% to 80.0%), respectively. Only 19.0% (48) of the UKAs met target alignment for all 4 alignment measures, and only 72.7% (184) met all 3 targets for overhang. Only 11.9% (30) fell within all alignment and overhang targets. The risk of implant failure was significantly impacted by outliers for FCA (failure rate = 15.4%, p = 0.036), FSA (16.2%, p = 0.028), TCA (17.9%, p = 0.020), and TSA (15.2%, p = 0.034) compared with implants with no alignment or overhang errors (0%); this was also true for far outliers (p < 0.05). Other risk factors for failure were posterior overhang (failure rate = 25.0%, p = 0.006) and medial overhang (38.2%, p < 0.001); anterior overhang was not a significant risk factor (10.0%, p = 0.090). CONCLUSIONS: The proportions of UKA revisions and alignment outliers were greater than expected, even among high-volume arthroplasty surgeons performing an average of 14.2 UKAs per year (just below the high-volume UKA threshold of 15). Alignment and overhang outliers were significant risk factors for implant failure. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

The Impact of Surgeon Volume and Training Status on Implant Alignment in Total Knee Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Implant malalignment may predispose patients to prosthetic failure following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). A more thorough understanding of the surgeon-specific factors that contribute to implant malalignment following TKA may uncover actionable strategies for improving implant survival. The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of surgeon volume and training status on malalignment. METHODS: In this retrospective multicenter study, we performed a radiographic analysis of 1,570 primary TKAs performed at 4 private academic and state-funded centers in the U.S. and U.K. Surgeons were categorized as high-volume (≥50 TKAs/year) or low-volume (<50 TKAs/year), and as a trainee (fellow/resident under the supervision of an attending surgeon) or a non-trainee (attending surgeon). On the basis of these designations, 3 groups were defined: high-volume non-trainee, low-volume non-trainee, and trainee. The postoperative medial distal femoral angle (DFA), medial proximal tibial angle (PTA), and posterior tibial slope angle (PSA) were radiographically measured. Outlier measurements were defined as follows: DFA, outside of 5° ± 3° of valgus; PTA, >±3° deviation from the neutral axis; and PSA, <0° or >7° of flexion for cruciate-retaining or <0° or >5° of flexion for posterior-stabilized TKAs. "Far outliers" were defined as measurements falling >± 2° outside of these ranges. The proportions of outliers were compared between the groups using univariate and multivariate analyses. RESULTS: When comparing the high and low-volume non-trainee groups using univariate analysis, the proportions of knees with outlier measurements for the PTA (5.3% versus 17.4%) and PSA (17.4% versus 28.3%) and the proportion of total outliers (11.8% versus 20.7%) were significantly lower in the high-volume group (all p < 0.001). The proportions of DFA (1.9% versus 6.5%), PTA (1.8% versus 5.7%), PSA (5.5% versus 12.6%), and total far outliers (3.1% versus 8.3%) were also significantly lower in the high-volume non-trainee group (all p < 0.001). Compared with the trainee group, the high-volume non-trainee group had significantly lower proportions of DFA (12.6% versus 21.6%), PTA (5.3% versus 12.0%), PSA (17.4% versus 33.3%), and total outliers (11.8% versus 22.3%) (all p < 0.001) as well as DFA (1.9% versus 3.9%; p = 0.027), PSA (5.5% versus 12.6%; p < 0.001), and total far outliers (3.1% versus 6.4%; p = 0.004). No significant differences were identified when comparing the low-volume non-trainee group and the trainee group, with the exception of PTA outliers (17.4% versus 12.0%; p = 0.041) and PTA far outliers (5.7% versus 2.6%; p = 0.033). Findings from multivariate analysis accounting for the effects of patient age, body mass index, and individual surgeon demonstrated similar results. CONCLUSIONS: Low surgical volume and trainee status were risk factors for outlier and far-outlier malalignment in primary TKA, even when accounting for differences in individual surgeon and patient characteristics. Trainee surgeons performed similarly, and certainly not inferiorly, to low-volume non-trainee surgeons. Even among high-volume non-trainees, the best-performing cohort in our study, the proportion of TKA alignment outliers was still high. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Acetabular Component Position and the Risk of Dislocation Following Primary and Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Matched Cohort Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Recently, the importance of acetabular component positioning in the Lewinnek "safe zone" in preventing prosthetic dislocation following total hip arthroplasty (THA) has been questioned. The purpose of this study was to determine the proportion of acetabular components within the Lewinnek safe zone between primary and revision THAs that have sustained a dislocation vs matched controls without a dislocation event. METHODS: This was a retrospective, institutional review board-approved investigation of THAs performed at our institution or referred to our institution between 1997 and 2013. Ninety-six primary THAs and 60 revision THAs that sustained a dislocation were included and matched 1:1 based on age, gender, and body mass index with nondislocated controls. Acetabular component inclination and anteversion were performed using Martell Hip Analysis Suite and compared between the 2 cohorts for both primary and revision THAs. RESULTS: The proportion of acetabular components within the safe zone for both inclination and anteversion was 23 of 96 (24%) in primary THA dislocators vs 48 of 96 (50%, P < .001) in controls. The proportion of acetabular components within the safe zone for both inclination and anteversion was 28 of 60 (47%) in revision THA dislocators vs 40 of 60 (66%, P = .03) in controls. CONCLUSION: Patients sustaining a dislocation following a primary or revision THA had acetabular components less frequently positioned within the safe zone compared to control patients. This study suggests acetabular component positioning remains an important variable in decreasing the risk of dislocation following primary and revision THA.