A practical guide for evaluating the osteoimmunomodulatory properties of biomaterials

Biomaterials offer a promising approach to repair bone defects. Whereas traditional studies predominantly focused on optimizing the osteogenic capacity of biomaterials, less focus has been on the immune response elicited by them. However, the immune and skeletal systems extensively interact, a concept which is referred to as ‘osteoimmunology’. This realization has fuelled the development of biomaterials with favourable osteoimmunomodulatory (OIM) properties, aiming to modulate the immune response and to support bone regeneration, thereby affecting the success of an implant. Given the plethora of in vitro assays used to evaluate the OIM properties of biomaterials, it may be challenging to select the right methods to produce conclusive results. In this review, we aim to provide a comprehensive and practical guide for researchers interested in studying the OIM properties of biomaterials in vitro. After a concise overview of the concept of osteoimmunology, emphasis is put on the methodologies that are regularly used to evaluate the OIM properties of biomaterials. First, a description of the most commonly used cell types and cell culture media is provided. Second, typical experimental set-ups and their relevant characteristics are discussed. Third, a detailed overview of the generally used methodologies and readouts, including cell type-specific markers and time points of analysis, is given. Finally, we highlight the promise of advanced approaches, namely microarrays, bioreactors and microfluidic-based systems, and the potential that these may offer to the osteoimmunology field.Peer ReviewedPostprint (published version

Hydroxyapatite coating does not improve uncemented stem survival after total hip arthroplasty!: An analysis of 116,069 THAs in the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association (NARA) database

Background and purpose — It is still being debated whether HA coating of uncemented stems used in total hip arthroplasty (THA) improves implant survival. We therefore investigated different uncemented stem brands, with and without HA coating, regarding early and long-term survival. Patients and methods — We identified 152,410 THA procedures using uncemented stems that were performed between 1995 and 2011 and registered in the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association (NARA) database. We excluded 19,446 procedures that used stem brands less than 500 times in each country, procedures performed due to diagnoses other than osteoarthritis or pediatric hip disease, and procedures with missing information on the type of coating. 22 stem brands remained (which were used in 116,069 procedures) for analysis of revision of any component. 79,192 procedures from Denmark, Norway, and Sweden were analyzed for the endpoint stem revision. Unadjusted survival rates were calculated according to Kaplan-Meier, and Cox proportional hazards models were fitted in order to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) for the risk of revision with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results — Unadjusted 10-year survival with the endpoint revision of any component for any reason was 92.1% (CI: 91.8–92.4). Unadjusted 10-year survival with the endpoint stem revision due to aseptic loosening varied between the stem brands investigated and ranged from 96.7% (CI: 94.4–99.0) to 99.9% (CI: 99.6–100). Of the stem brands with the best survival, stems with and without HA coating were found. The presence of HA coating was not associated with statistically significant effects on the adjusted risk of stem revision due to aseptic loosening, with an HR of 0.8 (CI: 0.5–1.3; p = 0.4). The adjusted risk of revision due to infection was similar in the groups of THAs using HA-coated and non-HA-coated stems, with an HR of 0.9 (CI: 0.8–1.1; p = 0.6) for the presence of HA coating. The commonly used Bimetric stem (n = 25,329) was available both with and without HA coating, and the adjusted risk of stem revision due to aseptic loosening was similar for the 2 variants, with an HR of 0.9 (CI: 0.5–1.4; p = 0.5) for the HA-coated Bimetric stem. Interpretation — Uncemented HA-coated stems had similar results to those of uncemented stems with porous coating or rough sand-blasted stems. The use of HA coating on stems available both with and without this surface treatment had no clinically relevant effect on their outcome, and we thus question whether HA coating adds any value to well-functioning stem designs.publishedVersio

Increased Long-Term Cardiovascular Risk After Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Nationwide Cohort Study

Abstract Total hip arthroplasty is a common and important treatment for osteoarthritis patients. Long-term cardiovascular effects elicited by osteoarthritis or the implant itself remain unknown. The purpose of the present study was to determine if there is an increased risk of late cardiovascular mortality and morbidity after total hip arthroplasty surgery. A nationwide matched cohort study with data on 91,527 osteoarthritis patients operated on, obtained from the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register. A control cohort (n = 270,688) from the general Swedish population was matched 1:3 to each case by sex, age, and residence. Mean follow-up time was 10 years (range, 7–21). The exposure was presence of a hip replacement for more than 5 years. The primary outcome was cardiovascular mortality after 5 years. Secondary outcomes were total mortality and re-admissions due to cardiovascular events. During the first 5 to 9 years, the arthroplasty cohort had a lower cardiovascular mortality risk compared with the control cohort. However, the risk in the arthroplasty cohort increased over time and was higher than in controls after 8.8 years (95% confidence interval [CI] 7.0–10.5). Between 9 and 13 years postoperatively, the hazard ratio was 1.11 (95% CI 1.05–1.17). Arthroplasty patients were also more frequently admitted to hospital for cardiovascular reasons compared with controls, with a rate ratio of 1.08 (95% CI 1.06–1.11). Patients with surgically treated osteoarthritis of the hip have an increased risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality many years after the operation when compared with controls

Uncemented and cemented primary total hip arthroplasty in the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register: Evaluation of 170,413 operations

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Since the introduction of total hip arthroplasty (THA) in Sweden, both components have most commonly been cemented. A decade ago the frequency of uncemented fixation started to increase, and this change in practice has continued. We therefore analyzed implant survival of cemented and uncemented THA, and whether the modes of failure differ between the two methods of fixation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All patients registered in the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register between 1992 and 2007 who received either totally cemented or totally uncemented THA were identified (n = 170,413). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis with revision of any component, and for any reason, as the endpoints was performed. Cox regression models were used to calculate risk ratios (RRs) for revision for various reasons, adjusted for sex, age, and primary diagnosis. RESULTS: Revision-free 10-year survival of uncemented THA was lower than that of cemented THA (85% vs. 94%, p < 0.001). No age or diagnosis groups benefited from the use of uncemented fixation. Cox regression analysis confirmed that uncemented THA had a higher risk of revision for any reason (RR = 1.5, 95% CI: 1.4-1.6) and for aseptic loosening (RR = 1.5, CI: 1.3-1.6). Uncemented cup components had a higher risk of cup revision due to aseptic loosening (RR = 1.8, CI: 1.6-2.0), whereas uncemented stem components had a lower risk of stem revision due to aseptic loosening (RR = 0.4, CI: 0.3-0.5) when compared to cemented components. Uncemented stems were more frequently revised due to periprosthetic fracture during the first 2 postoperative years than cemented stems (RR = 8, CI: 5-14). The 5 most common uncemented cups had no increased risk of revision for any reason when compared with the 5 most commonly used cemented cups (RR = 0.9, CI: 0.6-1.1). There was no significant difference in the risk of revision due to infection between cemented and uncemented THA. INTERPRETATION: Survival of uncemented THA is inferior to that of cemented THA, and this appears to be mainly related to poorer performance of uncemented cups. Uncemented stems perform better than cemented stems; however, unrecognized intraoperative femoral fractures may be an important reason for early failure of uncemented stems. The risk of revision of the most common uncemented cup designs is similar to that of cemented cups, indicating that some of the problems with uncemented cup fixation may have been solved.Open Access - This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the source is credited

Prediction of Early Adverse Events After THA : A Comparison of Different Machine-Learning Strategies Based on 262,356 Observations From the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association (NARA) Dataset

Objective: Preoperative risk prediction models can support shared decision-making before total hip arthroplasties (THAs). Here, we compare different machine-learning (ML) approaches to predict the six-month risk of adverse events following primary THA to obtain accurate yet simple-to-use risk prediction models. Methods: We extracted data on primary THAs (N = 262,356) between 2010 and 2018 from the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association dataset. We benchmarked a variety of ML algorithms in terms of the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) for predicting the risk of revision caused by periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), dislocation or periprosthetic fracture (PPF), and death. All models were internally validated against a randomly selected test cohort (one-third of the data) that was not used for training the models. Results: The incidences of revisions because of PJI, dislocation, and PPF were 0.8%, 0.4%, and 0.3%, respectively, and the incidence of death was 1.2%. Overall, Lasso regression with stable iterative variable selection (SIVS) produced models using only four to five input variables but with AUROC comparable to more complex models using all 32 variables available. The SIVS-based Lasso models based on age, sex, preoperative diagnosis, bearing couple, fixation, and surgical approach predicted the risk of revisions caused by PJI, dislocations, and PPF, as well as death, with AUROCs of 0.61, 0.67, 0.76, and 0.86, respectively. Conclusion: Our study demonstrates that satisfactory predictive potential for adverse events following THA can be reached with parsimonious modeling strategies. The SIVS-based Lasso models may serve as simple-to-use tools for clinical risk assessment in the future.Peer reviewe