Revision total knee arthroplasty in the young patient: is there trouble on the horizon?

BACKGROUND: The volume of total knee arthroplasties, including revisions, in young patients is expected to rise. The objective of this study was to compare the reasons for revision and re-revision total knee arthroplasties between younger and older patients, to determine the survivorship of revision total knee arthroplasties, and to identify risk factors associated with failure of revision in patients fifty years of age or younger. METHODS: Perioperative data were collected for all total knee arthroplasty revisions performed from August 1999 to December 2009. A cohort of eighty-four patients who were fifty years of age or younger and a cohort of eighty-four patients who were sixty to seventy years of age were matched for the date of surgery, sex, and body mass index (BMI). The etiology of failure of the index total knee arthroplasty and all subsequent revision total knee arthroplasties was determined. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were used to evaluate the timing of the primary failure and the survivorship of revision knee procedures. Finally, multivariate Cox regression was used to calculate risk ratios for the influence of age, sex, BMI, and the reason for the initial revision on survival of the revision total knee arthroplasty. RESULTS: The most common reason for the initial revision was aseptic loosening (27%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 19% to 38%) in the younger cohort and infection (30%; 95% CI = 21% to 40%) in the older cohort. Of the twenty-five second revisions in younger patients, 32% (95% CI = 17% to 52%) were for infection, whereas 50% (95% CI = 32% to 68%) of the twenty-six second revisions in the older cohort were for infection. Cumulative six-year survival rates were 71.0% (95% CI = 60.7% to 83.0%) and 66.1% (95% CI = 54.5% to 80.2%) for revisions in the younger and older cohorts, respectively. Infection and a BMI of ≥40 kg/m2 posed the greatest risk of failure of revision procedures, with risk ratios of 2.731 (p = 0.006) and 2.934 (p = 0.009), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The survivorship of knee revisions in younger patients is a cause of concern, and the higher rates of aseptic failure in these patients may be related to unique demands that they place on the reconstruction. Improvement in implant fixation and treatment of infection when these patients undergo revision total knee arthroplasty is needed. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence

Conversion Total Knee Arthroplasty Needs Its Own Diagnosis Related Group Facility Reimbursement Code

Introduction: Conversion from a prior surgery to a total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a more technically difficult procedure than primary TKA and is associated with worse short-term outcomes and increased complication and readmission rates, despite being undifferentiated under the current bundled payment model. The aim of this study was to determine differences in facility costs between primary TKA and conversion TKA, which we hypothesize are significant, to ensure providers are not penalized for treatment and high-risk patients have the same access to care. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed a consecutive series of patients undergoing primary TKA at two hospitals within Rothman Orthopaedic Institute from 2015-2017, comparing itemized facility costs between primary and conversion TKA patients. Secondary endpoints included length of stay, discharge disposition, and additional implants used. A multivariate regression analysis was performed to identify independent risk factors for increased facility costs, the need for additional implants, length of stay, and discharge disposition. Results: Of 2447 primary TKA procedures, 678 (27.7%) underwent conversion to TKA, which was associated with greater implant costs ($3424.25 vs. 3272.29, P\u3c0.0001), preoperative personnel costs ($1269.89 vs. $1217.72, p\u3c0.0001), and total costs ($6859.16 vs. $6703.55, p=0.0015). Presence of prior surgical hardware was a risk factor for increased implant costs ($501.1 increase, p=0.0024) and total cost ($501.4 increase, p=0.0024). Discussion: Conversion TKA is associated with significantly greater facility costs than primary TKA, thus confirming our hypothesis, and should be adjusted for in alternative payment models to ensure these patients do not encounter difficulties in accessing quality orthopaedic care

Catastrophic Femoral Head-Stem Trunnion Dissociation Secondary to Corrosion.

BACKGROUND: Modular femoral heads provide procedural enhancement by allowing accurate restoration of hip offset and limb-length equalization. However, corrosion may lead to adverse local tissue reactions. Severe trunnion corrosion can also lead to femoral head dissociation and catastrophic implant failure following primary total hip arthroplasty. METHODS: We describe 5 cases, from our institution, in which the femoral head became dissociated from the femoral stem trunnion secondary to severe corrosion. Possible causes are evaluated. RESULTS: Demographic commonalities among the 5 patients included a body mass index (BMI) of ≥30 kg/m(2) and male sex. All femoral heads were made of cobalt-chromium alloy and were larger-diameter implants (≥36 mm). Four of the 5 patients had a femoral head that increased the neck length above the default on a so-called standard head and 3 of the 5 had a stem with a 127° neck-shaft angle. CONCLUSIONS: Although dissociation of the femoral head from the femoral trunnion following total hip arthroplasty is exceedingly rare, the prevalence may increase with longer follow-up. The dissociation is likely related to multiple factors, including a BMI of ≥30 kg/m(2), male sex, and corrosion resulting from the use of a larger metal head with a neck length of greater than the default and a stem with high offset. It is critical that surgeons be able to recognize this mode of implant failure and appropriately prepare to remove the femoral component during revision surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence

Proximal tibial replacement in revision knee arthroplasty for non-oncologic indications.

Proximal tibial metaphyseal bone loss compromises the alignment and fixation of components during revision total knee arthroplasty. In massive, segmental defects with loss of collateral ligamentous support and lack of bone to support the use of prosthetic augments or metaphyseal cones or sleeves, a hinged proximal tibial replacement or a so-called megaprosthesis should be available. While proximal tibial replacement is the reconstructive method of choice in the setting of bone tumor resection, applications in non-oncologic joint arthroplasty are rare and may offer an opportunity for limb salvage in dire clinical scenarios with massive proximal tibial bone loss. This report reviews 6 cases of proximal tibial replacement

The Fate of Spacers in the Treatment of Periprosthetic Joint Infection.

BACKGROUND: Two-stage exchange arthroplasty remains the preferred method to treat periprosthetic joint infection. The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical course of periprosthetic joint infection following resection arthroplasty and insertion of a spacer. METHODS: Our institutional database was used to identify 504 cases of periprosthetic joint infection (326 knees and 178 hips) treated with resection arthroplasty and spacer insertion as part of a two-stage exchange arthroplasty. A review of the patient charts was performed to extract information relevant to the objectives of this study that included the details of the clinical course following resection arthroplasty. RESULTS: The mean follow-up duration after initial spacer implantation was 56.2 months. Reimplantation occurred in the joints of 417 (82.7%) of 504 cases. Of these 417 cases, 329 (78.9%) had a minimum one-year follow-up, and 81.4% of these had successful treatment. The mean duration from resection arthroplasty to reimplantation was 4.2 months (range, 0.7 to 131.7 months). Sixty (11.9%) of the 504 joints required interim spacer exchange(s). Of the eighty-seven cases that did not undergo reimplantation, six (6.9%) required amputation, five (5.7%) underwent a Girdlestone procedure, four (4.6%) underwent arthrodesis, and seventy-two (82.8%) underwent spacer retention. Thirty-six patients died in the interstage period. CONCLUSIONS: The commonly held belief that two-stage exchange arthroplasty carries a high success rate for the eradication of periprosthetic joint infection may need to be reexamined. A considerable number of patients undergoing the first stage of a two-stage procedure do not undergo a subsequent reimplantation for a variety of reasons or require an additional spacer exchange in the interim. Reports on the success of two-stage exchange should account for the mortality of these patients and for patients who never undergo reimplantation