Dislocation after total hip arthroplasty: implant design and orientation,”

Abstrac

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 \u3c10% 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 (\u3e±10° deviation from neutral), FSA (\u3e15° of flexion), TCA (\u3e±5° deviation from neutral), and TSA (\u3e±5° deviation from 7°). Far outliers were an additional \u3e±2° of deviation. Outliers for overhang were identified as \u3e3 mm for anterior overhang, \u3e2 mm for posterior overhang, and \u3e2 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 \u3c 0.05). Other risk factors for failure were posterior overhang (failure rate = 25.0%, p = 0.006) and medial overhang (38.2%, p \u3c 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 (\u3c50 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, \u3e±3° deviation from the neutral axis; and PSA, \u3c0° or \u3e7° of flexion for cruciate-retaining or \u3c0° or \u3e5° of flexion for posterior-stabilized TKAs. Far outliers were defined as measurements falling \u3e± 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 \u3c 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 \u3c 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 \u3c 0.001) as well as DFA (1.9% versus 3.9%; p = 0.027), PSA (5.5% versus 12.6%; p \u3c 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

Causes of failure of ceramic-on-ceramic and metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties.

BACKGROUND: Few large series of hard bearing surfaces have reported on reasons for early failure. A number of unique mechanisms of failure, including fracture, squeaking, and adverse tissue reactions, have been reported with these hard bearing surfaces. However, the incidence varies among the published studies. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: To confirm the incidences, we identified the etiologies of early failures of hard-on-hard bearing surfaces for ceramic-on-ceramic and metal-on-metal THAs. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed records of 2907 THAs with hard-on-hard bearing surfaces implanted between 1996 and 2009; 1697 (58%) had ceramic-on-ceramic and 1210 (42%) had metal-on-metal bearing surfaces. We recorded bearing-related complications and compared them to nonspecific reasons for revision THA. The minimum followup of the ceramic-on-ceramic and metal-on-metal cohorts was 6 months (mean, 48 months; range, 6-97 months) and 24 months (mean, 60 months; range, 24-178 months), respectively. RESULTS: The overall revision rate for ceramic-on-ceramic THA was 2.2% (38 of 1697), with aseptic loosening accounting for 55% of revisions (femur or acetabulum). The bearing accounted for 13% of the revisions in the ceramic-on-ceramic THA cohort. The overall metal-on-metal revision rate was 5.4% (65 of 1210), 17 involving adverse tissue reactions related to the metal-on-metal bearing surface (17 of 1210, 1.4% of cases; 17 of 65, 26% of revisions). CONCLUSIONS: Twenty-six percent of the revisions from metal-on-metal and 13% of ceramic-on ceramic were bearing related. The overall short- to medium-term revision rate was 2.2% and 5.4% for ceramic-on-ceramic and metal-on-metal, respectively. The most common etiology of failure was loosening of the femoral or acetabular components. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic study. See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of level of evidence