Radiographic Outliers, Revisions, and Functional Outcomes in Fixed-Bearing Medial Unicompartmental Arthroplasty

Background and Hypothesis: Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty (UKA) is a technically demanding procedure vulnerable to errors in component positioning. Recent studies suggest robotic-assistance improves precision of implant placement, minimizes outliers, and improves survivorship. However, we have previously demonstrated an experienced surgeon can match robotic accuracy. This study evaluated revision rates and functional outcomes of radiographic outliers in manual UKA. Experimental Design or Project Methods: A retrospective review of 222 consecutive fixed-bearing medial UKAs was conducted. Implant positioning and alignment were assessed radiographically measuring tibial coronal (TCA), femoral coronal (FCA), tibial sagittal (TSA) and femoral sagittal (FSA) angles as well as implant overhang. UCLA Activity Level and all-cause survivorship were evaluated. Student’s t-test, Chi square, and Kaplan Meier curves were used in analyses with alpha ≤ .05 designating statistical significance. Results: Using previously published alignment goals, our manual UKAs achieved the following targets: 92% for TCA, 100% for FCA, 88% for TSA, and 100% for FSA. For implant overhang, 100% met medial, anterior, and posterior targets. Our manual UKAs achieved desired alignment and overhang goals more frequently than previously published manual success. Survivorship free from aseptic revision in this study was 96% at 8.5 years. Additionally, there was no difference in UCLA Activity Level improvement comparing outliers and non-outliers (p³0.159). Conclusion and Potential Impact: Manual UKAs performed by an experienced surgeon showed improved success in achieving alignment and implant overhang goals compared to published manual UKA data and similar success compared to published robotic-assisted UKA data. We found no differences in revision rates or functional outcomes between outliers and non-outliers using previously published targets. For robotic assistance to be cost effective, it must demonstrate improved outcomes or survivorship when compared to manual UKAs. Our results contradict recently published claims that manual alignment outliers and failure rates fail to meet expectations for UKA.

Survivorship and functional outcome of a cemented acetabular component with bulk roof autograft for severe acetabular dysplasia: 12- to 23-year follow-up

Aims: Primary aim was to determine survival of a cemented acetabular component with bulk roof autograft with a minimum of 12 years follow-up. The secondary aim was to determine the clinical outcome. Methods: A cohort of 62 consecutive patients (74 hips) undergoing cemented total hip arthroplasty with acetabular bulk roof autograft for acetabular dysplasia were retrospectively identified. The group consisted of 57 female patients (67 hips) and 5 male patients (7 hips) with a mean age at operation of 45 years. No patient was lost to follow-up, however 9 patients died had during the study period. The Oxford Hip Score (OHS), Forgotten Joint Score (FJS), EuroQol 5-Dimensional Score (EQ-5D), Short Form (SF-12) physical score and patient satisfaction were used to assess clinical outcome for patients with a surviving prosthesis. Results: The median follow-up was 16.6 (13.4–19.1) years. 6 revisions were performed during the follow-up period, all of which were due to aseptic loosening of the acetabular component. The all-cause Kaplan Meier survival rate for the acetabular component was 99% at 10 years, 95% at 15 years and 83% at 20 years. Neither age, gender, femoral osteotomy or polyethylene (UHMW vs. cross-linked) were significant predictors of aseptic revision of the acetabular component. There were no case of graft resorption and all grafts were radiologically incorporated. 45 patients were available for functional assessment at a mean follow-up of 18.2 years. The mean OHS was 37.8, FJS was 55.7, EQ5D was 0.73, and SF-12 physical component was 43.2. No patient was dissatisfied, with 2 patients reporting a neutral satisfaction, 7 stating they were satisfied and the remaining 36 were very satisfied. Conclusions: A cemented acetabular component with bulk roof autograft for dysplasia offers excellent survival with good to excellent functional outcome with high patient satisfaction in the medium- to long-term.

Revision arthroplasty after unicompartimental knee arthroplasty

Background Unicompartimental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is a promising and increasing application to treat unicompartimental knee osteoarthritis. However, revision arthroplasty numbers after UKA are unknown. Therefore, aim of this study was to determine the nationwide burden of revision after UKA by answering the following questions: (1) How did numbers of revision UKA procedures developed over the last decade as a function of age and gender? (2) How high is the percentage of revision UKA procedures due to infection? (3) Which therapy strategy was chosen for surgical treatment of aseptic revision UKA? Methods Revision arthroplasty rates as a function of age, gender, infection and type of prosthesis were quantified based on Operation and Procedure Classification System codes using revision knee arthroplasty data from 2008 to 2018, provided by the Federal Statistical Office of Germany (Destatis). Results Over the last decade, revision UKA increased by 46.3% up to 3105 procedures in 2018. A trend towards higher numbers in younger patients was observed. Septic interventions constituted 5.7% of all revisions, whereby total procedures increased by 67.1% from 2008 through 2018. The main treatment strategy was an exchange to a bicondylar surface replacement prosthesis, which was done in 63.70% of all cases, followed by exchange to a femoral and tibial shaft-anchored (16.2% of all revisions). Conclusion The increasing number of revision arthroplasty after UKA in Germany, especially in younger patients and due to infection, underlines the need for future efforts to improve treatment strategies beyond UKA to delay primary arthroplasty and avoid periprosthetic joint infection.

“Unexpected” Infections in Revision Arthroplasty for Aseptic Loosening

Background. Data from the national registers of arthroplasty showed that about 12% of hip and knee arthroplasty undergo revision within 10 years after the primary surgery. The leading cause of hip revisions is aseptic loosening of components, knee joint periprosthetic infection (PPI). Some of the infectious complications, including those related to mechanical causes, remain out of sight. The aim of the study was to identify the frequency of unexpected infections during revision knee and hip arthroplasty performed for aseptic complications of any etiology. Materials and Methods. 839 cases of revision arthroplasty of knee and hip joints were analyzed, including 485 aseptic revisions in 450 patients. Clinical, X-ray, laboratory (complete blood count and comprehensive metabolic panel, coagulation panel) methods, synovial fluid analysis and microbiological examination of punctures, including intraoperative ones, were used. The ICM and EBJIS (European Bone and Joint Infections Society) consensus recommendations were used as criteria for assessing the presence of infection. Results. The average age of patients at the time of the revision was 61.7 years. The hip joint prevailed (59.4%), knee joint 40.6%. The growth of microorganisms in the intraoperative biomaterial was detected in 2.08% of observations: in 10 out of 287 patients after aseptic revision of the hip joints and in none of the 198 revisions of the knee joints. In 8 out of 10 cases, the causative agents were coagulase-negative staphylococci, including 6 MRSE; in two cases, anaerobic bacteria. All revisions were carried out by a one-stage method. Patients with detected PPI underwent systemic antibacterial therapy. At the stage of catamnesis, reinfection was assumed in one of the 10 identified cases of PPI, the patient did not show up for revision. In control 63% of the group of the other (aseptic) 470 patients, PPI developed in 4 cases, two-stage revisions were carried out. Conclusions. The frequency of infections accidentally detected during aseptic revisions of large joints was 2.08%. Three-time examination of joint punctures, including intraoperative, provides additional opportunities for the diagnosis of PPI during aseptic revision, and also allows you to choose the optimal stage of revision treatment. The experience gained makes it possible in certain cases to perform one-stage revision in the treatment of PPI.

Risk Factors for Aseptic Revision of Operatively Treated Ankle Fractures

Background: Early revision rates within 12 months after ankle fracture open reduction internal fixation (AF-ORIF) are fairly low; however, they remain relevant given the volume of ankle fractures occurring annually. Understanding these rates is complex because reoperation due to technical or mechanical complications is typically reported alongside soft tissue–related problems such as symptomatic hardware, wound dehiscence, or infection. There are limited data identifying risk factors specifically for revision of ankle fracture fixation in the absence of soft tissue complications. Understanding variables that predispose to aseptic technical and mechanical failure without this confounder may provide insight and improve patient care. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was performed at 2 large academic medical centers. Research Patient Data Registry (RPDR) data available from 2002 to 2019 were used to identify patients who underwent aseptic revision of AF-ORIF within 12 months (n = 33). A control group (n = 100) was selected by identifying sequential patients who underwent AF-ORIF not requiring revision within 12 months. Multiple factors were recorded for all patients in both cohorts. Each fracture was also evaluated according to the Ankle Reduction Classification System (ARCS) of Chien et al,8 which categorizes biplanar talar displacement in relation to a central tibial plumb line into 1 of 3 grades: A (0-2 mm), B (3-10 mm), and C (>10 mm). Adapted from its original purpose of grading reduction quality, we applied ARCS to pre-reduction radiographs to assess initial fracture displacement. All variables collected were compared in univariate analysis. Variables that achieved significance in univariate comparisons were included as candidates for multivariable analysis. Results: Final multivariable logistic regression modeling demonstrated the following factors to independently predict the need for aseptic revision surgery: documented falls in the early postoperative period (aOR, 298; 95% CI, 15.4, 5759; P < .001), movement-altering disorders (aOR, 81.7; 95% CI, 4.12, 1620; P = .004), a nonanatomic mortise (medial clear space [MCS] > superior clear space [SCS]) on immediate postoperative imaging (aOR, 38.4; 95% CI, 5.53, 267; P < .001), initial coronal plane tibiotalar displacement >10 mm and sagittal plane tibiotalar dislocation (ARCS-C) (aOR vs ARCS-A, 25.8; 95% CI, 2.81, 237; P = .004), substance abuse (aOR, 15.7; 95% CI, 2.66, 92.8; P = .002), and polytrauma (aOR, 12.3; 95% CI, 2.02, 74.8; P = .006). Conclusion: In this investigation we found a notable increase in risk for revision surgery after AF-ORIF for patients who had one of the following: (1) falls in the early postoperative period, (2) movement-altering disorders, (3) a nonanatomic mortise (MCS > SCS) on immediate postoperative imaging, (4) more severe initial fracture displacement, (5) substance abuse, or (6) polytrauma. Identifying these factors may allow surgeons to better understand risk and counsel patients, and may serve as future targets for intervention aimed at improving patient safety and outcomes after ankle fracture ORIF. Level of Evidence: Level III, retrospective cohort study.

Do patient-reported outcome measures improve after aseptic revision total hip arthroplasty?

Background: The purpose of this study was to determine patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) changes in: (1) pain, function and global health; and (2) predictors of PROMs in patients undergoing aseptic revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) using a multilevel model with patients nested within surgeon. Methods: A prospective cohort of 216 patients with baseline and 1-year PROMs who underwent aseptic rTHA between January 2016 and December 2017 were analysed. The most common indication for rTHA was aseptic loosening, instability, and implant failure. The PROMs included in this study were HOOS Pain and HOOS Physical Function Short-form (PS), Veterans RAND-12 Physical Component Score (VR-12 PCS), and VR-12 Mental Component Score (MCS). Multivariable linear regression models were constructed for predicting 1-year PROMs. Results: Mean 1-year PROMs improvement for aseptic revisions were 30.4 points for HOOS Pain and 22.1 points for HOOS PS. Predictors of better pain relief were patients with higher baseline pain scores. Predictors of better 1-year function were patients with higher baseline function and patients with a posterolateral hip surgical approach during revision. Although VR-12 PCS scores had an overall improvement, nearly 50% of patients saw no improvement or had worse physical component scores. Only 30.7% of patients reported improvements in VR-12 MCS. Conclusions: Overall, patients undergoing aseptic rTHA improved in pain and function PROMs at 1 year. Although global health assessment improved overall, nearly half of aseptic rTHA patients reported no change in physical/mental health status. The associations highlighted in this study can help guide the shared decision-making process by setting expectations before aseptic revision THA.