Management of Bone Loss in Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty: An International Consensus Symposium.

The evaluation, classification, and treatment of significant bone loss after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) continue to be a complex and debated topic in revision TKA (rTKA). Despite the introduction of new evidence and innovative technologies aimed at addressing the approach and care of severe bone loss in rTKA, there is no single document that systematically incorporates these newer surgical approaches. Therefore, a comprehensive review of the treatment of severe bone loss in rTKA is necessary. The Stavros Niarchos Foundation Complex Joint Reconstruction Center Hospital for Special Surgery, dedicated to clinical care and research primarily in revision hip and knee replacement, convened a Management of Bone Loss in Revision TKA symposium on June 24, 2022. At this meeting, the 42 international invited experts were divided into groups; each group was assigned to discuss questions related to 1 of the 4 topics: (1) assessing preoperative workup and imaging, anticipated bone loss, classification system, and implant surveillance; (2) achieving durable fixation in the setting of significant bone loss in revision TKA; (3) managing patellar bone loss and the extensor mechanism in cases of severe bone loss; and (4) considering the use of complex modular replacement systems: hinges, distal femoral, and proximal tibial replacements. Each group came to consensus, when possible, based on an extensive literature review and interactive discussion on their group topic. This document reviews each these 4 areas, the consensus of each group, and directions for future research.

Reliability and validity of the Paprosky classification for acetabular bone loss based on level of orthopedic training.

BACKGROUND: Reliability and validity of the Paprosky classification for acetabular bone loss have been debated. Additionally, the relationship between surgeon training level and Paprosky classification accuracy/treatment selection is poorly defined. This study aimed to: (1) evaluate the validity of preoperative Paprosky classification/treatment selection compared to intraoperative classification/treatment selection and (2) evaluate the relationship between training level and intra-rater and inter-rater reliability of preoperative classification and treatment choice. METHODS: Seventy-four patients with intraoperative Paprosky types [I (N = 24), II (N = 27), III (N = 23)] were selected. Six raters (Residents (N = 2), Fellows (N = 2), Attendings (N = 2)) independently provided Paprosky classification and treatment using preoperative radiographs. Graders reviewed images twice, 14 days apart. Cohen's Kappa was calculated for (1) inter-rater agreement of Paprosky classification/treatment by training level (2), intra-rater reliability, (3) preoperative and intraoperative classification agreement, and (4) preoperative treatment selection and actual treatment performed. RESULTS: Inter-rater agreement between raters of the same training level was moderate (K range = 0.42-0.50), and mostly poor for treatment selection (K range = 0.02-0.44). Intra-rater agreement ranged from fair to good (K range = 0.40-0.73). Agreement between preoperative and intraoperative classifications was fair (K range = 0.25-0.36). Agreement between preoperative treatment selections and actual treatments was fair (K range = 0.21-0.39). CONCLUSION: Inter-rater reliability of Paprosky classification was poor to moderate for all training levels. Preoperative Paprosky classification showed fair agreement with intraoperative Paprosky grading. Treatment selections based on preoperative radiographs had fair agreement with actual treatments. Further research should investigate the role of advanced imaging and alternative classifications in evaluation of acetabular bone loss.

High Rates of Early Septic Failure, but Low Rates of Aseptic Loosening After Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty With Contemporary Rotating-Hinge Prostheses.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to determine implant survivorship and functional outcomes for revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) with contemporary rotating-hinge knee implants. METHODS: A retrospective review identified 115 rTKAs using contemporary rotating-hinge implants from 2014 to 2018 for the treatment of instability (34, 30%), reimplantation after periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) (33, 29%), aseptic loosening (25, 22%), arthrofibrosis (14, 12%), periprosthetic fracture (4, 3%), osteolysis (4, 3%), and femoral component fracture (1, 1%). There were 70 women (61%), and the mean age was 67 years (range, 27 to 94). The mean follow-up was 3 years (range, 2 to 6). Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox proportional hazard models estimated survivorship. RESULTS: The re-revision rate was 20% (23 of 115) at an average of 18 months postoperatively. Re-revision indications included PJI (n = 14), aseptic loosening (n = 4), arthrofibrosis (n = 2), instability/malalignment (n = 1), femoral stem fracture (n = 1), and hinge mechanism disruption (n = 1). At 2 and 5 years, survivorship free from all-cause re-revision was 86 and 64%, and survivorship free from re-revision for aseptic loosening was 100 and 87%, respectively. Use of a rotating-hinge implant in reimplantation after PJI was a risk factor for subsequent re-revision (hazard ratio = 2.4, P = 0.046). On a radiographic review of unrevised rotating-hinges, there were major radiolucent lines around 2 femoral and 5 tibial components. The mean Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcomes Score for Joint Replacement increased from 43 preoperatively to 60 at 1 year (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In patients treated with a rotating-hinge implant for rTKA, there were relatively poor 2-year (86%) and 5-year (64%) survivorship free from all-cause re-revision, most commonly due to PJI. Midterm survivorship free from re-revision for aseptic loosening was modest (87%). There should be a goal to mitigate complications in complex rTKAs with rotating-hinge implants, namely PJI.

A novel quantitative grading system for implant fixation in revision total knee arthroplasty.

Aims: Obtaining solid implant fixation is crucial in revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) to avoid aseptic loosening, a major reason for re-revision. This study aims to validate a novel grading system that quantifies implant fixation across three anatomical zones (epiphysis, metaphysis, diaphysis). Methods: Based on pre-, intra-, and postoperative assessments, the novel grading system allocates a quantitative score (0, 0.5, or 1 point) for the quality of fixation achieved in each anatomical zone. The criteria used by the algorithm to assign the score include the bone quality, the size of the bone defect, and the type of fixation used. A consecutive cohort of 245 patients undergoing rTKA from 2012 to 2018 were evaluated using the current novel scoring system and followed prospectively. In addition, 100 first-time revision cases were assessed radiologically from the original cohort and graded by three observers to evaluate the intra- and inter-rater reliability of the novel radiological grading system. Results: At a mean follow-up of 90 months (64 to 130), only two out of 245 cases failed due to aseptic loosening. Intraoperative grading yielded mean scores of 1.87 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.82 to 1.92) for the femur and 1.96 (95% CI 1.92 to 2.0) for the tibia. Only 3.7% of femoral and 1.7% of tibial reconstructions fell below the 1.5-point threshold, which included the two cases of aseptic loosening. Interobserver reliability for postoperative radiological grading was 0.97 for the femur and 0.85 for the tibia. Conclusion: A minimum score of 1.5 points for each skeletal segment appears to be a reasonable cut-off to define sufficient fixation in rTKA. There were no revisions for aseptic loosening at mid-term follow-up when this fixation threshold was achieved or exceeded. When assessing first-time revisions, this novel grading system has shown excellent intra- and interobserver reliability.

Tibial bone defect prediction based on preoperative artefact-reduced CT imaging is superior to standard radiograph assessment.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of preoperative CT-based Anderson Orthopaedic Research Institute (AORI)-grading and to correlate Computed tomography (CT)-based volumetric defect measurements with intraoperative AORI findings. METHODS: 99 patients undergoing revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) with preoperative CT-images were identified in an institutional revision registry. CT-image segmentation with 3D-Slicer Software was used to create 3D tibial bone defects which were then graded according to the AORI-classification. The AORI classification categorizes tibial defects into three types: Type I has healthy cortical and cancellous bone near the joint line, Type II involves metaphyseal bone loss affecting one or both condyles, and Type III indicates deficient metaphyseal bone with distal defects and potential damage to the patellar tendon and collateral ligament attachments. These 3D-CT gradings were compared to preoperative X-ray and intraoperative AORI grading. The Friedman test was used to investigate differences between AORI values of each measurement method. Volumetric 3D-bone defect measurements were used to investigate the relationship between AORI classification and volumetric defect size in the three anatomic zones of the tibia. RESULTS: Substantial agreements between preoperative 3D-CT AORI and intraoperative AORI (kappa = 0.663; P < 0.01) and fair agreements between preoperative X-ray AORI and intraoperative AORI grading (kappa = 0.304; P < 0.01) were found. Moderate correlations between volume of remaining bone and intraoperative AORI grading were found in epiphysis (rS = - 0.529; P < 0.001), metaphysis (rS = - 0.557; P < 0.001) and diaphysis (rS = - 0.421; P < 0.001). Small volumetric differences between AORI I vs. AORI II defects and relatively large differences between AORI II and AORI III defects in each zone were detected. CONCLUSION: Tibial bone defect prediction based on preoperative 3D-CT segmentation showed a substantial agreement with intraoperative findings and is superior to standard radiograph assessment. The relatively small difference in defect volume between AORI I, IIa and IIb suggests that updated CT-based classifications might hold benefits for the planning of rTKA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Retrospective Cohort Study; III.

Which Combination is the Best? A Comparison of the Predictive Potential of Serum Biomarker Combinations to Diagnose Periprosthetic Joint Infection.

BACKGROUND: Without a gold-standard test, recent periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) literature has explored the utility of combining serological results, with promising findings. However, previous studies evaluated fewer than 200 patients and often studied only 1 to 2 test combinations. The purpose of this study was to accumulate a large single-institution cohort of revision total joint arthroplasty (rTJA) patients to determine the diagnostic utility of combination serum biomarkers to identify PJI. METHODS: A single institution longitudinal database was assessed to identify all patients who underwent rTJA from 2017 to 2020. There were 1,363 rTJA patients (715 rTKA patients and 648 rTHA patients) including 273 PJI cases (20%) analyzed. The PJI was diagnosed post-rTJA utilizing 2011 Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) criteria. Erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), C-reactive protein (CRP), D-dimer, and interleukin 6 (IL-6) were systematically collected for all patients. RESULTS: The rTKA combination markers of CRP + ESR (sensitivity: 78.3%, specificity: 88.8%, positive predictive value (PPV): 70.0%, negative predictive value (NPV): 92.5%), CRP + D-dimer (sensitivity: 60.5%, specificity: 92.6%, PPV: 63.4%, NPV: 91.7%), and CRP + IL-6 (sensitivity: 38.5%, specificity: 100.0%, PPV: 100.0%, NPV: 92.9%) all yielded higher specificity than CRP alone (sensitivity: 94.4%, specificity: 75.0%, PPV: 55.5%, NPV: 97.6%). Similarly, the rTHA combination markers of CRP + ESR (sensitivity: 70.1%, specificity: 88.8%, PPV: 58.1%, NPV: 93.1%), CRP + D-dimer (sensitivity: 57.1%, specificity: 90.1%, PPV: 43.2%, NPV: 94.1%), and CRP + IL-6 (sensitivity: 21.4%, specificity: 98.4%, PPV: 60.0%, NPV: 91.7%) all yielded higher specificity than CRP alone (sensitivity: 84.7%, specificity: 77.5%, PPV: 45.4%, NPV: 95.8%). CONCLUSION: Overall, in diagnosing PJI for both rTKA and rTHA, 2-marker combinations yielded higher specificity, while 3-marker combinations yielded higher sensitivity compared to CRP alone. However, compared to all 2-marker and 3-marker combinations, CRP demonstrated superior overall diagnostic utility. These findings suggest that routine combination testing of markers for PJI diagnosis may be excessive and an unnecessary use of resources, especially in resource-limited situations.

Does Acetabular Bone Loss Severity Associate With Patient-Reported Outcome Measures and Reoperation Rate in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty?

BACKGROUND: Acetabular bone loss is a challenging clinical problem when performing revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA). This study aimed to evaluate how acetabular bone loss severity influences (1) clinical outcomes and (2) patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in rTHA patients. METHODS: Patients who underwent rTHA with acetabular component revision from January 2016 to February 2022 were included. Treating surgeons determined Paprosky acetabular bone loss classification intraoperatively. Patients were grouped based on numeric classification (PI, PII, or PIII) to categorize severity. Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacement (HOOS, JR.) and Lower Extremity Activity Scale (LEAS) score were collected preoperatively and 1 year postoperatively. There were 197 patients included. Paprosky classification was PI for 47 patients (23.9%), PII for 113 patients (57.4%), and PIII for 37 patients (18.8%). Mean clinical follow-up was 29 months (range, 1 to 69). RESULTS: Reoperation rate was 0% (0 patients), 6.2% (7 patients), and 10.8% (4 patients) for PI, PII and PIII groups respectively (P = .052). Mean preoperative HOOS, JR. and LEAS for PI, PII and PIII groups were significantly different, but 1-year postoperative HOOS, JR. and LEAS did not differ significantly. Rates of HOOS, JR. minimal clinically important difference achievement differed significantly between bone loss groups. CONCLUSION: In this study of rTHA patients, greater acetabular bone loss severity was associated with worse preoperative PROMs and trended toward higher reoperation rate. Postoperative PROMs for bone loss severity groups were statistically similar. Patients who had worse acetabular bone loss were more likely to achieve HOOS, JR. minimal clinically important difference postoperatively. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Subsidence of a Single-Taper Femoral Stem in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty: Characterization, Associated Factors, and Sequelae.

BACKGROUND: We characterized subsidence of an uncemented single-taper femoral stem in primary total hip arthroplasty (THA), determined factors associated with subsidence, and evaluated the impact of subsidence on outcome. METHODS: This retrospective study included 502 primary THAs performed using a single-taper stem in Dorr type-A and type-B femora between 2014 and 2018. Subsidence was measured based on distance from the greater trochanter to stem shoulder on calibrated X-rays. Demographics, case-specific data, and outcomes were collected. Changes in subsidence and variables associated with subsidence were determined. RESULTS: Stem subsidence was 1.5 ± 2.3 mm, 1.6 ± 2.0 mm, 2.0 ± 2.6 mm, 2.3 ± 2.3 mm, 2.6 ± 2.5 mm, and 2.7 ± 3.0 mm at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, and ≥3 years from THA, respectively. Subsidence across all patients at final mean follow-up of 24 months (range, 1 to 101 months) was 2.2 ± 2.6 mm. Pairwise comparison demonstrated that subsidence occurred predominantly within the first 6 months. Significant subsidence (≥5 mm) occurred in 17.3% and was associated with a body mass index (BMI) ≥25 (P = .04). Dorr type, age, sex, and American Society of Anesthesiologists class were not associated with subsidence. There were 2 patients (0.4%) who underwent a revision that could be attributed to subsidence. There was no association between subsidence and pain, limp, need for ambulatory aid, or analgesic use. CONCLUSION: In primary THAs performed using a single-taper prosthesis, average subsidence was 2.2 mm and significant subsidence occurred in 17.3%. Patient BMI was associated with subsidence. Revision surgery related to subsidence was infrequent (0.4%).

Leg-Length Discrepancy Variability on Standard Anteroposterior Pelvis Radiographs: An Analysis Using Deep Learning Measurements.

BACKGROUND: Leg-length discrepancy (LLD) is a critical factor in component selection and placement for total hip arthroplasty. However, LLD radiographic measurements are subject to variation based on the femoral/pelvic landmarks chosen. This study leveraged deep learning (DL) to automate LLD measurements on pelvis radiographs and compared LLD based on several anatomically distinct landmarks. METHODS: Patients who had baseline anteroposterior pelvis radiographs from the Osteoarthritis Initiative were included. A DL algorithm was created to identify LLD-relevant landmarks (ie, teardrop (TD), obturator foramen, ischial tuberosity, greater and lesser trochanters) and measure LLD accurately using six landmark combinations. The algorithm was then applied to automate LLD measurements in the entire cohort of patients. Interclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were calculated to assess agreement between different LLD methods. RESULTS: The DL algorithm measurements were first validated in an independent cohort for all six LLD methods (ICC = 0.73-0.98). Images from 3,689 patients (22,134 LLD measurements) were measured in 133 minutes. When using the TD and lesser trochanter landmarks as the standard LLD method, only measuring LLD using the TD and greater trochanter conferred acceptable agreement (ICC = 0.72). When comparing all six LLD methods for agreement, no combination had an ICC>0.90. Only two (13%) combinations had an ICC>0.75 and eight (53%) combinations had a poor ICC (<0.50). CONCLUSION: We leveraged DL to automate LLD measurements in a large patient cohort and found considerable variation in LLD based on the pelvic/femoral landmark selection. This emphasizes the need for the standardization of landmarks for both research and surgical planning.

Hardware complications and reoperations following precontoured plate fixation of the olecranon: a population-based study.

BACKGROUND: Several fixation techniques have been described to treat acute olecranon fractures. Plate fixation is often used because of its superior mechanical properties. The reported rates of reoperation after olecranon plate fixation have been quite heterogeneous. The purpose of this study was to establish an updated reoperation rate based on modern precontoured plate constructs. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used population-level administrative data to identify all surgically treated adult patients with olecranon fractures at 4 hospitals in Edmonton, AB, Canada, between 2010 and 2015. Radiographic review was conducted to identify patients who underwent precontoured olecranon plate fixation. Fracture characteristics including Mayo fracture classification and other concomitant upper-extremity injuries were identified. Chart reviews were performed to determine patient characteristics and patients who required reoperation. The primary reason for and type of reoperation were determined. RESULTS: Six hundred patients were surgically treated for olecranon fractures. Precontoured plate fixation was used in 321 patients. The average age of included patients was 56 years (standard deviation [SD], 19.4 years), and there were 173 female patients (53.9%). Reoperation was required in 90 patients (28%). For 50 patients, implant-related irritation was the primary reason for reoperation, representing 55.6% of the patients who underwent reoperation (50 of 90) and 15.6% of the total cohort (50 of 321). Other reasons for reoperation included hardware failure in 17 patients (5.3%), infection in 9 (2.8%), and contracture in 9 (2.8%). Patients who required reoperation were significantly younger (52.9 years [SD, 18.1 years] vs. 57.7 years [SD, 19.4 years]; P = .048) and had significantly higher rates of type III olecranon fractures (17.8% [16 of 90] vs. 8.2% [19 of 231]; P = .04) and Monteggia fractures (13.3% [12 of 90] vs. 4.8% [11 of 231]; P = .008). A multivariate logistic regression model also demonstrated increased odds ratios (ORs) for overall reoperation in patients with Monteggia fractures (OR, 2.99 [95% confidence interval, 1.25-7.17]; P = .014) and for reoperation due to implant-related irritation in younger patients (OR, 0.98 [95% confidence interval, 0.96-0.996]; P = .018). No discerning factors were identified for the 50 patients who underwent hardware removal for implant-related irritation compared with the whole reoperation group (n = 90). CONCLUSION: This study found that patients with olecranon fractures treated with precontoured plates experienced a hardware removal rate of 15.6% for implant-related irritation. Patients who sustained more complex fractures, such as Monteggia injuries, demonstrated higher rates of reoperation. Increasing age may be associated with lower rates of reoperation. In patients who required reoperation, there were no identifiable radiographic or clinical characteristics that were associated with implant-related irritation as their primary reason for reoperation.