The 2018 Otto Aufranc Award: How does genome-wide variation affect osteolysis risk after THA?

BACKGROUND: Periprosthetic osteolysis resulting in aseptic loosening is a leading cause of THA revision. Individuals vary in their susceptibility to osteolysis and heritable factors may contribute to this variation. However, the overall contribution that such variation makes to osteolysis risk is unknown. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We conducted two genome-wide association studies to (1) identify genetic risk loci associated with susceptibility to osteolysis; and (2) identify genetic risk loci associated with time to prosthesis revision for osteolysis. METHODS: The Norway cohort comprised 2624 patients after THA recruited from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Registry, of whom 779 had undergone revision surgery for osteolysis. The UK cohort included 890 patients previously recruited from hospitals in the north of England, 317 who either had radiographic evidence of and/or had undergone revision surgery for osteolysis. All participants had received a fully cemented or hybrid THA using a small-diameter metal or ceramic-on-conventional polyethylene bearing. Osteolysis susceptibility case-control analyses and quantitative trait analyses for time to prosthesis revision (a proxy measure of the speed of osteolysis onset) in those patients with osteolysis were undertaken in each cohort separately after genome-wide genotyping. Finally, a meta-analysis of the two independent cohort association analysis results was undertaken. RESULTS: Genome-wide association analysis identified four independent suggestive genetic signals for osteolysis case-control status in the Norwegian cohort and 11 in the UK cohort (p ≤ 5 x 10). After meta-analysis, five independent genetic signals showed a suggestive association with osteolysis case-control status at p ≤ 5 x 10 with the strongest comprising 18 correlated variants on chromosome 7 (lead signal rs850092, p = 1.13 x 10). Genome-wide quantitative trait analysis in cases only showed a total of five and nine independent genetic signals for time to revision at p ≤ 5 x 10, respectively. After meta-analysis, 11 independent genetic signals showed suggestive evidence of an association with time to revision at p ≤ 5 x 10 with the largest association block comprising 174 correlated variants in chromosome 15 (lead signal rs10507055, p = 1.40 x 10). CONCLUSIONS: We explored the heritable biology of osteolysis at the whole genome level and identify several genetic loci that associate with susceptibility to osteolysis or with premature revision surgery. However, further studies are required to determine a causal association between the identified signals and osteolysis and their functional role in the disease. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The identification of novel genetic risk loci for osteolysis enables new investigative avenues for clinical biomarker discovery and therapeutic intervention in this disease

Outcome in design-specific comparisons between highly crosslinked and conventional polyethylene in total hip arthroplasty 163,368 hip replacements in the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association database with 5-11 years of follow-up

Background and purpose - Most registry studies regarding highly crosslinked polyethylene (XLPE) have focused on the overall revision risk. We compared the risk of cup and/or liner revision for specific cup and liner designs made of either XLPE or conventional polyethylene (CPE), regarding revision for any reason and revision due to aseptic loosening and/or osteolysis.Patients and methods - Using the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association (NARA) database, we identified cup and liner designs where either XLPE or CPE had been used in more than 500 THAs performed for primary hip osteoarthritis. We assessed risk of revision for any reason and for aseptic loosening using Cox regression adjusted for age, sex, femoral head material and size, surgical approach, stem fixation, and presence of hydroxyapatite coating (uncemented cups).Results - The CPE version of the ZCA cup had a risk of revision for any reason similar to that of the XLPE version (p = 0.09), but showed a 6-fold higher risk of revision for aseptic loosening (p < 0.001). The CPE version of the Reflection All Poly cup had an 8-fold elevated risk of revision for any reason (p < 0.001) and a 5-fold increased risk of revision for aseptic loosening (p < 0.001). The Charnley Elite Ogee/Marathon cup and the Trilogy cup did not show such differences.Interpretation Whether XLPE has any advantage over CPE regarding revision risk may depend on the properties of the polyethylene materials being compared, as well as the respective cup designs, fixation type, and follow-up times. Further research is needed to elucidate how cup design factors interact with polyethylene type to affect the risk of revision

Impact of hip arthroplasty registers on orthopaedic practice and perspectives for the future

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) registers are established in several countries to collect data aiming to improve the results after THA. Monitoring of adverse outcomes after THA has focused mainly on revision surgery, but patient-reported outcomes have also been investigated.Several surgery-related factors influencing the survival of the THA have been thoroughly investigated and have changed clinical practice. These factors include surgical approach, specific implants, the size of the components, type of fixation and different bone cements.Register data have been used to examine the risk of venous thromboembolism and bleeding after THA. These investigations have resulted in shorter duration of thromboprophylaxis and a reduced frequency of blood transfusion.Registers may provide specific information to surgeons on the outcome of all THAs that they have performed with a detailed analysis of revisions rates and reasons for the revisions.A number of other stakeholders can use register data to provide benchmarks. The National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man supplies data to the Orthopaedic Device Evaluation Panel (ODEP), which provides benchmarks at 3, 5, 7, 10, and 13 years graded from A*, A, B and C.Future perspectives: National registers have to play a major role in documenting the quality of THA in order to describe best practice and report implant outliers. The registers have to be used for research and post-market surveillance and register data may be a source for intelligent decision tools

Total hip arthroplasties in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI) and the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association (NARA): comparison of patient and procedure characteristics in 475,685 cases

Background and purpose - Collaborations between arthroplasty registries are important in order to create the possibility of detecting inferior implants early and improve our understanding of differences between nations in terms of indications and outcomes. In this registry study we compared patient and procedure characteristics, and revision rates in the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association (NARA) database and the Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI).Patients and methods - All total hip arthroplasties (THAs) performed in 2010-2016 were included from the LROI (n = 184,862) and the NARA database (n = 290,823), which contains data from Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Finland. Descriptive statistics and Kaplan-Meier survival analyses based on all reasons for revision and stratified by fixation were performed and compared between countries.Results - In the Netherlands, the proportion of patients aged < 55 years (9%) and male patients (34%) was lower than in Nordic countries (< 55 years 11-13%; males 35-43%); the proportion of osteoarthritis (OA) (87%) was higher compared with Sweden (81%), Norway (77%), and Denmark (81%) but comparable to Finland (86%). Uncemented fixation was used in 62% of patients in the Netherlands, in 70% of patients in Denmark and Finland, and in 28% and 19% in Norway and Sweden, respectively. The 5-year revision rate for THAs for OA was lower in Sweden (2.3%, 95% CI 2.1-2.5) than in the Netherlands (3.0%, CI 2.9-3.1), Norway (3.8%, CI 3.6-4.0), Denmark (4.6%, CI 4.4-4.8), and Finland (4.4%, CI 4.3-4.5). Revision rates in Denmark, Norway, and Finland were higher for all fixation groups.Interpretation - Patient and THA procedure characteristics as well as revision rates evinced some differences between the Netherlands and the Nordic countries. The Netherlands compared best with Denmark in terms of patient and procedure characteristics, but resembled Sweden more in terms of short-term revision risk. Combining data from registries like LROI and the NARA collaboration is feasible and might possibly enable tracking of potential outlier implants

A randomized study on migration of the Spectron EF and the Charnley flanged 40 cemented femoral components using radiostereometric analysis at 2 years

Background and purpose: We performed a randomized study to determine the migration patterns of the Spectron EF femoral stem and to compare them with those of the Charnley stem, which is regarded by many as the gold standard for comparison of implants due to its extensive documentation. Patients and methods: 150 patients with a mean age of 70 years were randomized, single-blinded, to receive either a cemented Charnley flanged 40 monoblock, stainless steel, vaquasheen surface femoral stem with a 22.2-mm head (n = 30) or a cemented Spectron EF modular, matte, straight, collared, cobalt-chrome femoral stem with a 28-mm femoral head and a roughened proximal third of the stem (n = 120). The patients were followed with repeated radiostereometric analysis for 2 years to assess migration. Results: At 2 years, stem retroversion was 2.3° and 0.7° (p < 0.001) and posterior translation was 0.44 mm and 0.17 mm (p = 0.002) for the Charnley group (n = 26) and the Spectron EF group (n = 74), respectively. Subsidence was 0.26 mm for the Charnley and 0.20 mm for the Spectron EF (p = 0.5). Interpretation: The Spectron EF femoral stem was more stable than the Charnley flanged 40 stem in our study when evaluated at 2 years. In a report from the Norwegian arthroplasty register, the Spectron EF stem had a higher revision rate due to aseptic loosening beyond 5 years than the Charnley. Initial stability is not invariably related to good long-term results. Our results emphasize the importance of prospective long-term follow-up of prosthetic implants in clinical trials and national registries and a stepwise introduction of implants

Personalized estimation of one-year mortality risk after elective hip or knee arthroplasty for osteoarthritis

Aims To develop and validate patient-centred algorithms that estimate individual risk of death over the first year after elective joint arthroplasty surgery for osteoarthritis. Methods A total of 763,213 hip and knee joint arthroplasty episodes recorded in the National Joint Registry for England and Wales (NJR) and 105,407 episodes from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register were used to model individual mortality risk over the first year after surgery using flexible parametric survival regression. Results The one-year mortality rates in the NJR were 10.8 and 8.9 per 1,000 patient-years after hip and knee arthroplasty, respectively. The Norwegian mortality rates were 9.1 and 6.0 per 1,000 patient-years, respectively. The strongest predictors of death in the final models were age, sex, body mass index, and American Society of Anesthesiologists grade. Exposure variables related to the intervention, with the exception of knee arthroplasty type, did not add discrimination over patient factors alone. Discrimination was good in both cohorts, with c-indices above 0.76 for the hip and above 0.70 for the knee. Time-dependent Brier scores indicated appropriate estimation of the mortality rate (≤ 0.01, all models). Conclusion Simple demographic and clinical information may be used to calculate an individualized estimation for one-year mortality risk after hip or knee arthroplasty (https://jointcalc.shef.ac.uk). These models may be used to provide patients with an estimate of the risk of mortality after joint arthroplasty

Statistical analysis of arthroplasty data: II. Guidelines

It is envisaged that guidelines for statistical analysis and presentation of results will improve the quality and value of research. The Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association (NARA) has therefore developed guidelines for the statistical analysis of arthroplasty register data. The guidelines are divided into two parts, one with an introduction and a discussion of the background to the guidelines (Ranstam et al. 2011a, see pages x-y in this issue), and this one with a more technical statistical discussion on how specific problems can be handled. This second part contains (1) recommendations for the interpretation of methods used to calculate survival, (2) recommendations on howto deal with bilateral observations, and (3) a discussion of problems and pitfalls associated with analysis of factors that influence survival or comparisons between outcomes extracted from different hospitals

Implant survival of the most common cemented total hip devices from the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association database

Background and purpose According to previous Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association (NARA) data, the 10-year implant survival of cemented total hip arthroplasties (THAs) is 94% in patients aged 65-74 and 96% in patients aged 75 or more. Here we report a brand-level comparison of cemented THA based on the NARA database, which has not been done previously.Patients and methods We determined the rate of implant survival of the 9 most common cemented THAs in the NARA database. We used Kaplan-Meier analysis with 95% CI to study implant survival at 10 and 15 years, and Cox multiple regression to assess survival and hazard ratios (HRs), with revision for any reason as endpoint and with adjustment for age, sex, diagnosis, and femoral head material.Results Spectron EF THA (89.9% (CI: 89.3-90.5)) and Elite THA (89.8% (CI: 89.0-90.6)) had the lowest 10-year survivorship. Lubinus (95.7% survival, CI: 95.5-95.9), MS 30 (96.6%, CI: 95.8-97.4), and C-stem THA (95.8%, CI: 94.8-96.8) had a 10-year survivorship of at least 95%. Lubinus (revision risk (RR)=0.77, CI: 0.73-0.81), Muller (RR =0.83, CI: 0.70-0.99), MS-30 (RR =0.73, CI: 0.63-0.86), C-stem (RR =0.70, CI: 0.55-0.90), and Exeter Duration THA (RR =0.84, CI: 0.77-0.90) had a lower risk of revision than Charnley THA, the reference implant.Interpretation The Spectron EF THA and the Elite THA had a lower implant survival than the Charnley, Exeter, and Lubinus THAs. Implant survival of the Muller, MS 30, CPT, and C-stem THAs was above the acceptable limit for 10-year survival