No Difference in Revision Rates and High Survival Rates in Large-head Metal-on-metal THA Versus Metal-on-polyethylene THA: Long-term Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Pseudotumor formation is a well-known complication in metal-on-metal (MoM) THA. Pseudotumors combined with elevated serum ion levels and complaints from patients can lead to high revision rates. Long-term (> 10 years) results obtained from randomized trials comparing large-head MoM THA and conventional metal-on-polyethylene (MoP) THA are lacking regarding revision and survival rates, pseudotumor formation, functional outcomes, and serum ion levels. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: At 10 years of follow-up, (1) what is the difference in survival and revision rates between large-head (38 to 60 mm) MoM THA and conventional 28-mm MoP THA? (2) What is the difference in pseudotumor formation between large-head MoM THA and MoP THA? (3) Is there a difference in functional outcome between large-head MoM THA and MoP THA? (4) What is the difference in serum ion levels between large-head MoM THA and MoP THA? METHODS: Between January 2006 and December 2008, 104 patients were randomized to receive either cementless MoM THA (50 patients) or cementless MoP THA (54 patients). In all, 78% (81 of 104) of patients completed the 10-year postoperative follow-up: 36 patients with MoM THA (72%; six patients lost to follow-up) and 45 with MoP THA (83%; four lost to follow-up). In the MoM group, 47% (17) were men, and the patients had a mean ± SD age of 60 ± 5 years. In the MoP group, 38% (17) were men, and the patients had a mean age of 61 ± 5 years. All baseline characteristics were similar between the groups. At 10 years of follow-up, all patient records were screened for revision surgery or complications, and the primary endpoint was survivorship free from revision for any cause at the 10-year follow-up interval, which we analyzed using a Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. All patients had a CT scan to determine the pseudotumor classification, which was reviewed by an independent radiologist. Functional outcome was measured using the patient-reported Oxford Hip Score and Harris Hip Score; the latter was assessed by a blinded nurse practitioner. Finally, serum ion cobalt and chrome concentrations were measured at 10 years postoperatively. Because the a priori sample size calculation for this randomized controlled trial was based on a different endpoint, a post hoc power analysis was performed for this long-term follow-up study, with survival as the primary outcome. It showed that considering the number of included patients, this study would have sufficient power (one-sided testing, alpha 0.05, power 80%) to discern a difference of 20% in the survival rate between the MoP and MoM groups (95% versus 75%). RESULTS: With the numbers available, there was no difference in survivorship free from revision for any cause between the MoP group and MoM group at 10 years (95% [95% CI 85% to 98%] versus 92% [95% CI 82% to 98%]; p = 0.6). A higher percentage of patients in the MoM group had pseudotumors on CT than those in the MoP group did, but pseudotumors were observed in both groups (56% [20 of 36] in the MoM group versus 22% [10 of 45] in the MoP group, relative risk 1.8 [95% CI 1.2 to 2.6]; p = 0.002). A higher proportion of elevated cobalt and chrome levels was found in the MoM group (19% and 14%, respectively) than in the MoP group (0% for both cobalt and chrome) (cobalt: RR 1.2 [95% CI 1.1 to 1.5]; p = 0.002; chrome: RR 1.2 [95% CI 1.0 to 1.3]; p = 0.01). In 25% of the patients with pseudotumors (5 of 20 patients), there were elevated serum cobalt levels. None of the 23 patients without pseudotumors had elevated cobalt levels (RR 1.3 [95% CI 1.0 to 1.7]; p = 0.01). There was no difference in functional outcome between study groups, nor a difference between patients with a pseudotumor and those without. CONCLUSION: This study showed that the survival of patients with large-head MoM THA was high and comparable to that of those with MoP THA, which contrasts with the high revision rates reported by others. Although some patients with MoP THAs experienced pseudotumors, the risk of a pseudotumor was much greater in MoM hips, and serum ion levels were higher in patients who received an MoM THA. For these reasons and unknown future complications, continued surveillance of patients with MoM THAs seems important. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, therapeutic study.

Positive Intraoperative Cultures in Cup Revisions of THA: What Happens to the Stem?

BACKGROUND: Positive intraoperative cultures (PICs) are encountered in some patients undergoing revision of the acetabular cup after a previous THA. It is unknown whether PIC of the cup indicates whether the stem is infected as well and what happens to the stem during follow-up. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What proportion of patients undergoing THA who undergo cup revision have PICs? (2) What is the survival of the stem during follow-up in cup revisions with PICs versus that of those with negative cultures? (3) Does antibiotic treatment of PIC of the cup prevent revision THA during follow-up? METHODS: In this retrospective, comparative multicenter study, five surgeons at four centers performed 338 acetabular cup revisions between January 2015 and December 2017. After evaluating the data, we excluded one patient because of an incomplete dataset and 77 patients because fewer than three intraoperative cultures were obtained during surgery, leaving 260 patients for analysis. Follow-up was 2 years. Patients were stratified into three cohorts: no PIC, one PIC, and two or more PICs. RESULTS: The proportion of patients with one or more PIC was 15% (39 of 260). A total of 8% (21 of 260) had one and 7% (18 of 260) had two or more PICs. Stem survival was lower in patients with two or more PICs, but stem revision for periprosthetic joint infection was similar between groups. Two-year survival, which was defined as freedom from revision for any cause or infection, was 97% (95% confidence interval 95% to 99%) in the group without PICs, 100% (95% CI 95% to 100%) in the group with one PIC, and 86% (95% CI 68% to 100%; p = 0.08) in the group with two or more PICs. None of the patients in the no PIC and one PIC groups were treated with antibiotics. In the two or more PICs cohort, 12 of 18 patients were treated. The stem survived in one of 12 patients treated with antibiotics versus two of six patients who were not treated with antibiotics. CONCLUSION: When treated with antibiotics, more than two PICs isolated during cup revision surgery do not have a major impact on survival of the stem during follow-up. A larger cohort of patients with PICs during cup revision might confirm these findings. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Willingness to participate in a hypothetical orthopaedic diagnostic and invasive surgical trial.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate patient preferences and the determinants of participation willingness in orthopaedic diagnostic or invasive surgical randomized controlled trials. METHODS: This observational study included one hundred patients visiting an orthopaedic clinic. The patients answered if they were willing to participate in a hypothetical invasive and diagnostic trial among patients with a distal radius fracture. RESULTS: We found no difference in participation willingness in either the invasive surgical (66/100) or the diagnostic trial (68/100, p = 0.76). Willingness to participate was not associated with age, gender, country of origin, level of education, marital status, or distance of home from the hospital with the confidence interval for all odds ratios including the value 1. Patients who expressed willingness to participate do so because they wanted to contribute to science; patients who declined to participate wanted to speak with a doctor and to be better informed. CONCLUSION: This study showed a high rate of willingness to participate in orthopaedic surgical invasive trials and in diagnostic trials. Nevertheless, to ensure participation, it is recommended to put emphasis on the contribution to science and to give adequate information about the trial including the opportunity to talk to a doctor.

Agreement on fixation of pediatric supracondylar humerus fractures.

BACKGROUND: Pediatric supracondylar humerus fractures (pSCHFs) may be challenging injuries to treat because of the potential residual deformity. There is debate regarding the technical aspects of adequate closed reduction and crossed Kirschner wire (K-wire) fixation. PURPOSE: Do surgeons have an agreement on the aspects of the fixation of pSCHFs? METHODS: Radiographs of 20 patients from a cohort of 154 patients with pSCHFs treated with closed reduction and crossed K-wire fixation were selected. Forty-four surgeons viewed the postoperative radiographs and diagnosed the presence or absence of technical flaws and made a recommendation for or against reoperation. An expert panel of three orthopedic and trauma surgeons provided a reference standard for technical factors. Furthermore, final outcome 2 years after trauma was assessed. RESULTS: There was limited agreement on potential technical flaws (ICC 0.15-0.28), radiographic measures of alignment (ICC for anterior humeral line and Baumann angle of 0.37 and 0.23 respectively), the quality of postoperative reduction, position of the elbow in cast, and recommendation for repeat surgery (ICCs between 0.23 and 0.40). Sensitivity and specificity for these questions ranged from 0.59 to 0.90. There was no correlation between the voted quality of postoperative reduction and loss of reduction or final function. CONCLUSIONS: Surgeons have limited agreement on the quality of postoperative results in pSCHFs and the indication for reoperation. Reviewing postoperative radiographs may present a good learning opportunity and could help improve skills, but it is not a validated method for quality control and has to be seen in light of clinical outcome.