Letter to the Editor on “Indications for MARS-MRI in Patients Treated With Articular Surface Replacement XL Total Hip Arthroplasty”

[no abstract

Does regional anaesthesia reduce complications following total hip and knee replacement compared with general anaesthesia?:An analysis from the National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man

Background Regional anesthesia is increasingly used in enhanced recovery programs following total hip replacement (THR) and total knee replacement (TKR). However, debate remains about its potential benefit over general anesthesia given that complications following surgery are rare. We assessed the risk of complications in THR and TKR patients receiving regional anesthesia compared with general anesthesia using the world’s largest joint replacement registry. Methods We studied the National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man linked to English hospital inpatient episodes for 779,491 patients undergoing THR and TKR. Patients received either regional anesthesia (n = 544,620, 70%) or general anesthesia (n = 234,871, 30%). Outcomes assessed at 90 days included length of stay, readmissions, and complications. Regression models were adjusted for patient and surgical factors to determine the effect of anesthesia on outcomes. Results Length of stay was reduced with regional anesthesia compared with general anesthesia (THR = −0.49 days, 95% confidence interval [CI] = −0.51 to −0.47 days, P < .001; TKR = −0.47 days, CI = −0.49 to −0.45 days, P < .001). Regional anesthesia also had a reduced risk of readmission (THR odds ratio [OR] = 0.93, CI = 0.90-0.96; TKA OR = 0.91, CI = 0.89-0.93), any complication (THR OR = 0.88, CI = 0.85-0.91; TKA OR = 0.90, CI = 0.87-0.93), urinary tract infection (THR OR = 0.85, CI = 0.77-0.94; TKR OR = 0.87, CI = 0.79-0.96), and surgical site infection (THR OR = 0.87, CI = 0.80-0.95; TKR OR = 0.84, CI = 0.78-0.89). Anesthesia type did not affect the risk of revision surgery or mortality. Conclusion Regional anesthesia was associated with reduced length of stay, readmissions, and complications following THR and TKR when compared with general anesthesia. We recommend regional anesthesia should be considered the reference standard for patients undergoing THR and TKR

A matched comparison of revision rates of cemented Oxford Unicompartmental Knee Replacements with Single and Twin Peg femoral components, based on data from the National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man

Background and purpose — Registries report high revision rates after unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) due, in part, to aseptic loosing. In an attempt to improve Oxford UKR femoral component fixation a new design was introduced with a Twin rather than a Single peg. We used the National Joint Registry (NJR) to compare the 5-year outcomes of the Single and Twin Peg cemented Oxford UKRs. Patients and methods — We performed a retrospective observational study using NJR data on propensity score matched Single and Twin Peg UKRs (matched for patient, implant and surgical factors). Data on 2,834 Single Peg and 2,834 Twin Peg were analyzed. Cumulative implant survival was calculated using the Kaplan–Meier method and comparisons between groups performed using Cox regression models. Results — In the matched cohort, the mean follow up for both Single and Twin Peg UKRs was 3.3 (SD 2) and 3.4 years (SD 2) respectively. The 5-year cumulative implant survival rates for Single Peg and Twin Peg were 94.8% (95% CI 93.6–95.8) and 96.2% (CI 95.1–97.1) respectively. Implant revision rates were statistically significantly lower in the Twin Peg (hazard ratio [HR)] = 0.74; p = 0.04). The revision rate for femoral component aseptic loosening decreased significantly (p = 0.03) from 0.4% (n = 11) with the Single Peg to 0.1% (n = 3) with the Twin Peg. The revision rate for pain decreased significantly (p = 0.01) from 0.8% (n = 23) with the Single Peg to 0.3% (n = 9) with the Twin Peg. No other reasons for revision had significant differences in revision rates. Interpretation — The revision rate for the cemented Twin Peg Oxford UKR was 26% less than the Single Peg Oxford UKR. This was mainly because the revision rates for femoral loosening and pain more than halved. This suggests that the Twin Peg component should be used in preference to the Single Peg design.</p

New surgical instrumentation reduces the revision rate of Unicompartmental Knee Replacement:A propensity score matched comparison of 15,906 knees from the National Joint Registry

Background Unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) offers advantages over total knee replacement but has higher revision rates. New instrumentation known as Microplasty was introduced to address this. The aim was to compare the revision rates of UKRs implanted with Microplasty and traditional instrumentation (Non-Microplasty). Methods National Joint Registry (NJR) data was used to propensity score match 15,906 UKRs (7953 Microplasty and 7953 Non-Microplasty) for important patient, implant and surgical factors. Implant survival rates were determined using the Kaplan–Meier method and compared using Cox regression models in a multilevel model. Results The five-year implant survival for Microplasty and Non-Microplasty UKRs were 96.7% (95% CI: 96.0%–97.2%) and 94.5% (CI: 93.8–95.1%), respectively. The revision rate for Microplasty UKR was significantly lower than that of Non-Microplasty UKRs (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.77, p = 0.008). Compared with Non-Microplasty UKRs, the revision rate of Microplasty UKRs implanted during the year after the introduction of Microplasty was lower, but the difference was not significant (HR: 0.86, CI: 0.67–1.10, p = 0.23), whereas for those implanted more than a year after introduction, the difference was significant (HR: 0.69, CI: 0.54–0.89, p = 0.004). Conclusion The use of Microplasty instrumentation has resulted in an improved five-year UKR survival. Microplasty UKR implanted during the first year after introduction had a small, non-significant decrease in revision rate. As the revision rate did not increase, this suggests that there is no adverse learning curve effect. Microplasty UKRs implanted after this transition period had a revision rate 31% lower than the Non-Microplasty group. Level of evidence II.</p

The risk of developing cancer following metal-on-metal hip replacement compared with non metal-on-metal hip bearings:Findings from a prospective national registry “The National Joint Registry of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man”

Background and purpose Over 1 million metal-on-metal hip replacements were implanted. Even well-functioning implants produce wear debris that can cause tissue damage, disseminate and cause DNA damage. We aimed to establish if there was an association between metal-on-metal hip replacement and the risk of subsequently developing cancer compared with alternative hip replacements. Methods We performed a population based prospective longitudinal cohort study using data from the National Joint Registry linked to Hospital Episode Statistics (n = 403,881 patients). We examined the incidence of a new diagnosis of cancer in patients who received a metal-onmetal bearing in comparison with those who received a non metal-on-metal bearing. Kaplan-Meier estimates of time to first cancer diagnosis were used with Cox proportional hazards regression models to assess the effect on the time to cancer diagnosis for all cancer types, haematological, malignant melanoma, urinary tract cancers or prostate cancer in men. Results The maximum follow up available was 11.8 years with 25% of patients followed up for more than 6.8 years (mean follow up 4.6 years; median 4.3; IQR 2.1–6.8; range 0.01–11.8). Analyses by gender that adjusted for age at primary and presence or absence of linked Welsh (PEDW) records showed no increase in the risk of developing cancer according to the bearing surface implanted for all cancers, haematological cancers, malignant melanoma, urinary tract cancers or prostate cancer in men. For patients receiving a second hip replacement, there was also no difference. Conclusion We have demonstrated that there is currently no evidence of an increase in the risk of cancer following primary hip replacement according to the type of bearing material used. Although the risk of revision in metal-on-metal bearing hip replacements is higher, it is reassuring that the risk of a new diagnosis of cancer is not currently increased. Despite the long term follow up available in this study, the latency period for some cancers is very long and therefore continued monitoring is required to ensure no new patterns emerge that may indicate need for universal screening.</p

What is appropriate surveillance for metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty patients?

The unexpected high revision rates of large-diameter (femoral head sizes of 36 mm or greater) metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties (MoMHAs) have led to worldwide regulatory authorities recommending regular surveillance, even for asymptomatic individuals. However, these recommendations are not evidence-based and are very costly. The rapidly evolving evidence base requires an update regarding the investigation and management of MoMHA patients. This article is the first of 2 (the second article in this series will consider the threshold for performing revision, and the outcomes following ARMD revision surgery: Matharu et al., Revision surgery of metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties for adverse reactions to metal debris: A clinical update. Acta Orthop 2018; in press), and considers the various investigative modalities used during surveillance, with specific focus on blood metal ion sampling and cross-sectional imaging. No single investigation can universally be used during MoMHA patient surveillance. Recent studies have now provided important information on interpreting blood metal ions (effective in identifying patients at low risk of problems), clarifying the roles of cross-sectional imaging (reserve combined ultrasound and MARS-MRI for complex cases), and providing parameters to safely exclude many asymptomatic patients from regular surveillance. This information will be useful when designing future surveillance protocols for MoMHA patients

The influence of mode of anaesthesia on perioperative outcomes in people with hip fracture: a prospective cohort study from the National Hip Fracture Database for England, Wales and Northern Ireland

Background: Delirium is common after hip fracture surgery, affecting up to 50% of patients. The incidence of delirium may be influenced by mode and conduct of anaesthesia. We examined the effect of spinal anaesthesia (with and without sedation) compared with general anaesthesia on early outcomes following hip fracture surgery, including delirium. Methods: We used prospective data on 107,028 patients (2018 to 2019) from the National Hip Fracture Database, which records all hip fractures in patients aged 60 years and over in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Patients were grouped by anaesthesia: general (58,727; 55%), spinal without sedation (31,484; 29%), and spinal with sedation (16,817; 16%). Outcomes (4AT score on post-operative delirium screening; mobilisation day one post-operatively; length of hospital stay; discharge destination; 30-day mortality) were compared between anaesthetic groups using multivariable logistic and linear regression models. Results: Compared with general anaesthesia, spinal anaesthesia without sedation (but not spinal with sedation) was associated with a significantly reduced risk of delirium (odds ratio (OR)=0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.92–0.98), increased likelihood of day one mobilisation (OR=1.06, CI=1.02–1.10) and return to original residence (OR=1.04, CI=1.00–1.07). Spinal without sedation (p<0.001) and spinal with sedation (p=0.001) were both associated with shorter hospital stays compared with general anaesthesia. No differences in mortality were observed between anaesthetic groups. Conclusions: Spinal and general anaesthesia achieve similar outcomes for patients with hip fracture. However, this equivalence appears to reflect improved perioperative outcomes (including a reduced risk of delirium, increased likelihood of mobilisation day one post-operatively, shorter length of hospital stay and improved likelihood of returning to previous residence on discharge) among the sub-set of patients who received spinal anaesthesia without sedation. The role and effect of sedation should be studied in future trials of hip fracture patients undergoing spinal anaesthesia

Blood Metal Ion Thresholds to Identify Patients with Metal-on-Metal Hip Implants at Risk of Adverse Reactions to Metal Debris

Background: The authors of recent studies have reported newly devised implant-specific blood metal ion thresholds to predict adverse reactions to metal debris (ARMD) in patients who have undergone unilateral or bilateral metal-on-metal (MoM) hip arthroplasty. These thresholds were most effective for identifying patients at low risk of ARMD. We investigated whether these newly devised blood metal ion thresholds could effectively identify patients at risk of ARMD after MoM hip arthroplasty in an external cohort of patients. Methods: We performed a validation study involving 803 MoM hip arthroplasties (323 unilateral Birmingham Hip Resurfacing [BHR], 93 bilateral BHR, and 294 unilateral Corail-Pinnacle implants) performed in 710 patients at 3 European centers. All patients underwent whole-blood metal ion sampling, and were divided into 2 groups: those with ARMD (leading to revision or identified on imaging; n = 75) and those without ARMD (n = 635). Previously devised implant-specific blood metal ion thresholds (2.15 μg/L of cobalt for unilateral BHR; 5.5 μg/L for the maximum of either cobalt or chromium for bilateral BHR; and 3.57 μg/L of cobalt for unilateral Corail-Pinnacle implants) were applied to the validation cohort, and receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was used to establish the discriminatory characteristics of each threshold. Results: The area under the curve, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for the ability of each implant-specific threshold to distinguish between patients with and without ARMD were, respectively, 89.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 82.8% to 96.0%), 78.9%, 86.7%, 44.1%, and 96.9% for unilateral BHR; 89.2% (CI = 81.3% to 97.1%), 70.6%, 86.8%, 54.5%, and 93.0% for bilateral BHR; and 76.9% (CI = 63.9% to 90.0%), 65.0%, 85.4%, 24.5%, and 97.1% for unilateral Corail-Pinnacle implants. Using the implant-specific thresholds, we missed 20 patients with ARMD (2.8% of the patients in this series). We missed more patients with ARMD when we used the fixed thresholds proposed by regulatory authorities: 35 (4.9%) when we used the U.K. threshold of 7 μg/L for both cobalt and chromium (p = 0.0003), 21 (3.0%) when we used the U.S. threshold of 3 μg/L for both cobalt and chromium (p = 1.0), and 46 (6.5%) when we used the U.S. threshold of 10 μg/L for both cobalt and chromium (p < 0.0001). Conclusions: This external multicenter validation study confirmed that patients with blood metal ion levels below new implant-specific thresholds have a low risk of ARMD after MoM hip arthroplasty. Using these implant-specific thresholds, we missed fewer patients with ARMD compared with when the thresholds currently proposed by regulatory authorities were used. We therefore recommend using implant-specific blood metal ion thresholds when managing patients who have undergone MoM hip arthroplasty. Level of Evidence: Diagnostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence

Lymphoid aggregates that resemble tertiary lymphoid organs define a specific pathological subset in metal-on-metal hip replacements

Aseptic lymphocyte-dominated vasculitis-associated lesion (ALVAL) has been used to describe the histological lesion associated with metal-on-metal (M-M) bearings. We tested the hypothesis that the lymphoid aggregates, associated with ALVAL lesions resemble tertiary lymphoid organs (TLOs). Histopathological changes were examined in the periprosthetic tissue of 62 M-M hip replacements requiring revision surgery, with particular emphasis on the characteristics and pattern of the lymphocytic infiltrate. Immunofluorescence and immunohistochemistry were used to study the classical features of TLOs in cases where large organized lymphoid follicles were present. Synchrotron X-ray fluorescence (XRF) measurements were undertaken to detect localisation of implant derived ions/particles within the samples. Based on type of lymphocytic infiltrates, three different categories were recognised; diffuse aggregates (51%), T cell aggregates (20%), and organised lymphoid aggregates (29%). Further investigation of tissues with organised lymphoid aggregates showed that these tissues recapitulate many of the features of TLOs with T cells and B cells organised into discrete areas, the presence of follicular dendritic cells, acquisition of high endothelial venule like phenotype by blood vessels, expression of lymphoid chemokines and the presence of plasma cells. Co-localisation of implant-derived metals with lymphoid aggregates was observed. These findings suggest that in addition to the well described general foreign body reaction mediated by macrophages and a T cell mediated type IV hypersensitivity response, an under-recognized immunological reaction to metal wear debris involving B cells and the formation of tertiary lymphoid organs occurs in a distinct subset of patients with M-M implants