Search

Background: The introduction of crosslinked ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (XLPE) acetabular liners has been very successful, with decreased wear and reduction in the rates of revision hip arthroplasties. XLPE is the preferred articulation for most surgeons; however, there are concerns about the long-term performance of XLPE liners created with different manufacturing processes, which may lead to time-dependent failure, including accelerated wear, after several years.Questions/purposes: (1) What is the amount and rate of wear during the first 10 years using radiostereometric analysis (RSA) measurements of patients who had THAs that included a second-generation XLPE bearing? (2) Does the rate of wear change after 5 years in situ?Methods: This is a brief follow-up of a previous RSA study. In that study, we prospectively enrolled 21 patients with osteoarthritis who underwent primary cementless THA with an XLPE acetabular liner (three cycles of 3Mrad annealed) and 32-mm articulation. That group represented 44% of the 48 THAs performed by the surgeon at the hospital where RSA was available; 16 had cemented hips, leaving 32 who were invited to participate in this study. Of those, 11 lived rurally and declined to participate, leaving 21 patients who were included in the initial study. Since then, three patients died, one developed dementia and could not participate, and one had revision THA for reasons other than wear, leaving 16 patients available for analysis at 10 years. Tantalum markers were inserted during surgery, and all patients had RSA radiographs taken at 1 week, 6 months, and 1, 2, 5, and 10 years postoperatively. Femoral head penetration into the acetabular component was measured with RSA, including bedding-in during the first year and annual wear thereafter.Results: The median medial, proximal, anterior, two-dimensional (2D), and three-dimensional (3D) wear rates between 1 and 10 years were -0.001, 0.004, -0.012, 0.000, and 0.002 mm/year, respectively. No patient in this cohort had a proximal or 2D wear rate greater than 0.025 mm/year. The median proximal wear rate between 5 and 10 years (0.002 mm/year) was not greater than wear at 1 to 5 years (0.004 mm/year).Conclusion: Femoral head penetration in this second-generation XLPE liner remained very low at 10 years and accelerated wear after 5 years in situ did not occur. Concerns about late-onset wear from oxidation of irradiated-annealed XLPE were not observed. The low level of wear remains encouraging for the future clinical performance of this material.Level Of Evidence: Level II, therapeutic study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: TKA generally has excellent long-term survivorship. When a new knee system supersedes a previous model, increased survivorship, improved functional performance, or both may be expected, because key areas of design modification are often targeted to address wear, stability, and the patellofemoral articulation. However, not all design changes are beneficial, and to our knowledge, knee arthroplasty has not been systematically evaluated in the context of design changes that occur during the development of new knee arthroplasty systems.Questions/purposes: Using the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) we performed multiple old-to-new comparisons of frequently used contemporary knee implants to ask: (1) does overall prosthesis survivorship free from revision increase when a new knee prosthesis system is introduced to replace a prior prosthesis system? (2) Has survivorship free from revision improved for the revision indications of wear, instability, and patellofemoral articulation issues, where development efforts have been concentrated?Methods: Data from the AOANJRR from September 1999 to December 2017 were used to compare the survivorship of prostheses free from revision at a maximum of 17 years in procedures where a new design model was introduced to replace a prior knee system from the same manufacturer. Only prosthesis systems used in a minimum of 2000 primary TKA procedures for osteoarthritis that had a minimum of 5 years of follow-up were included. Varus-valgus constrained and hinge TKA designs were excluded. Cruciate-retaining, posterior-stabilized, and medial pivot-design knees were considered separately. The new and old prosthesis systems were paired for analysis. Survivorship was calculated with Kaplan Meier estimates and comparisons were performed using the Cox proportional hazards method. Subanalyses according to the three main revision indications were performed, and where possible, analyses were performed based on polyethylene types (highly cross-linked polyethylene and ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene), combined and separated. Revision was defined as a reoperation of a previous knee arthroplasty in which one or more of the components was removed, replaced, or added. There were 323,955 TKA procedures and 11 new prosthesis system designs that were introduced to replace an earlier knee system from the same manufacturer. Of these prosthesis system pairs, six were cruciate-retaining prostheses, four were posterior-stabilized designs, and one was a medial pivot design.Results: Six of the 11 knee system pairs showed improved survivorship with the new design, three were no different, and in two, the newer prosthesis systems had a higher rate of revision than the old one did. When revision for wear was analyzed, five prosthesis systems showed improvement, five were no different, and one had a higher rate of revision than the previous system did. There was no improvement in the rate of revision for instability; seven new prosthesis systems showed no difference from the previous system and four new prosthesis systems had a higher rate of revision than the previous system did. A subanalysis of revision for patellofemoral complications showed improvement in two comparisons, no difference in six, and a higher revision rate in two; one could not be calculated because of an insufficient number of revisions for this reason.Conclusions: It is difficult to predict whether a new system will demonstrate better survival than a previous one, and widespread uptake of a new design before a benefit is shown in robust clinical studies is unwise. Similarly, adoption of a new system for which there is no difference in survivorship from a previous model may be premature because a new device may have associated unknown and unintended consequences. Healthcare policy makers and therapeutic device regulators should similarly be guided by results and seek out peer-reviewed evidence before accepting change to established practice. Surgeons must be aware that implant changes may not translate into better survivorship and must seek compelling evidence of improvement in survival and/or function before changing systems.Level Of Evidence: Level III, therapeutic study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: First-generation highly cross-linked polyethylene liners have reduced the incidence of wear particle-induced osteolysis. However, failed acetabular liners have shown evidence of surface cracking, mechanical failure, and oxidative damage. This has led to the development of second-generation highly cross-linked polyethylene, which has improved wear and mechanical properties and resistance to oxidation in vitro. Owing to its recent introduction, there are no publications describing its clinical performance. Questions/purposes: We assessed early clinical wear of a second-generation highly cross-linked polyethylene liner and compared its clinical performance with the published results of hip simulator tests and with first-generation highly cross-linked polyethylene annealed liners. Patients and Methods: Twenty-one patients were enrolled in a prospective cohort study. Clinical outcome and femoral head penetration were measured for 19 patients at 6 months and 1 and 2 years postoperatively. Results: The median proximal head penetration was 0.009 mm and 0.024 mm at 1 and 2 years, respectively. The median two-dimensional (2-D) head penetration was 0.083 mm and 0.060 mm at 1 and 2 years, respectively. The median proximal wear rate between 1 and 2 years was 0.015 mm/year. Conclusions: The wear rate calculated was similar to the in vitro wear rate reported for this material; however, it was less than the detection threshold for this technique. Although longer followup is required for wear to reach a clinically quantifiable level, this low level of wear is encouraging for the future clinical performance of this material. Level of Evidence: Level IV, therapeutic study. See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Medial compartment osteoarthritis is a common disorder that often is treated by unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA). Although the Oxford 3 prosthesis is commonly used based on revision rate and cumulative survival, our experience suggests that although there may be adequate implant survival rates, we observed a worrisome and undisclosed reintervention rate of nonrevision procedures.Purpose: We describe the frequency and cause of repeat intervention subsequent to implanting this device.Methods: Between 1998 and 2005, 398 patients underwent UKA using the Oxford 3 prosthesis. The minimum followup was 12 months (mean, 43 months; range, 12-102 months).Results: Forty of the 398 (10%) patients had 55 (13.8%) repeat anesthetics (reintervention). There were 38 nonrevision reinterventions. Revision was performed in 15 patients (3.8%), but two patients had a second revision (17 revisions or 4.3%). We revised the UKA to a second UKA in seven of the 15 cases but two subsequently were rerevised to a TKA; eight were revised directly to a TKA.Conclusions: Although our data confirm the reported revision rates for this prosthesis, we observed a substantial reintervention rate. Most of the reinterventions are minor and are diagnosed frequently and treated arthroscopically. If revision is required, a second UKA may be considered and performed successfully in patients with isolated loosening of one component.Level Of Evidence: Level II, prognostic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]