Significant differences in rates of aseptic loosening between two variations of a popular total knee arthroplasty design

Does the use of tibial stem extensions reduce the risk of aseptic loosening in obese patients undergoing primary total knee arthroplasty: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to compare the risk of revision for aseptic loosening in obese (body mass index >30 kg/m2) patients with stemmed (ST) versus non-stemmed (NST) tibial implants in primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA).

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines. Studies reporting a direct comparison between ST and NST tibial implants in obese patients were included. The primary outcome of interest was revision for aseptic loosening. Outcomes were analysed using meta-analysis of relative risk. Risk of bias assessment was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies and the RoB-2 Cochrane tool for randomised studies.

RESULTS

Seven studies met the selection criteria, consisting of four cohort studies and three randomised controlled trials. Mean follow up time for the eligible cohort was 62.6 months. Meta-analysis demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in the risk of aseptic revision in the ST group compared with the NST group (risk ratio 0.25, 95% confidence interval 0.07 to 0.92). After removal of all zero-event studies, the results remained in favour of the ST group (risk ratio 0.15, 95% confidence interval 0.03 to 0.64).

CONCLUSIONS

This study found that obese patients undergoing TKA with stemmed tibial implants may have a lower risk of aseptic revision compared with those with non-stemmed tibial implants. However, due to the lack of high-quality literature available, our study is unable to draw a definitive conclusion on this matter. We suggest that this topic should be re-evaluated using higher-quality study methods, particularly national joint registries studies and randomised controlled trials.

Aseptic loosening of the option stemmed tibial tray in the Zimmer NexGen LPS total knee arthroplasty system

BACKGROUND

We investigated the relationship between the backside deformation of polyethylene (PE) tibial inserts and aseptic loosening of the Option stemmed tibial tray used with Zimmer NexGen posterior-stabilised (PS) devices. We hypothesized that explanted inserts used in PS designs would exhibit greater extents of PE backside deformation than those used in equivalent cruciate retaining (CR) designs and that PE inserts retrieved from total knee arthroplasties (TKAs) revised for aseptic tibial tray loosening would exhibit greater extents of backside deformation than TKAs revised for other reasons.

METHODS

A total of 73 explanted fixed-bearing TKAs (42 CR and 31 PS) were examined. PE components underwent geometric examination with a coordinate measuring machine using validated techniques. Multiple regression modelling was used to identify variables associated with revision secondary to aseptic loosing and to determine factors associated with increased PE backside deformation.

RESULTS

PE inserts retrieved from TKAs with aseptic loosening had significantly greater backside deformation than those retrieved from TKAs revised for other reasons (p < 0.001). Greater PE backside deformation was significantly associated with larger tray/insert clearance heights (p < 0.001), thinner inserts (p < 0.001) and PS TKAs (p = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

PE backside deformation was significantly greater in the PS TKAs. This may provide one explanation for the increased rate of aseptic loosening reported with the Option tibial tray used with the Legacy Posterior Stabilised (LPS) system.

Camouflage uncovered: what should happen next?

Recent publications have drawn attention to the fact that some brands of joint replacement may contain variants which perform significantly worse (or better) than their 'siblings'. As a result, the National Joint Registry has performed much more detailed analysis on the larger families of knee arthroplasties in order to identify exactly where these differences may be present and may hitherto have remained hidden. The analysis of the Nexgen knee arthroplasty brand identified that some posterior-stabilized combinations have particularly high revision rates for aseptic loosening of the tibia, and consequently a medical device recall has been issued for the Nexgen 'option' tibial component which was implicated. More elaborate signal detection is required in order to identify such variation in results in a routine fashion if patients are to be protected from such variation in outcomes between closely related implant types.

Comparison of traditional PS versus kinematically designs in primary total knee arthroplasty

PURPOSE

Kinematically designed total knee arthroplasty (TKA) aims to restore normal kinematics by replicating the function of both cruciate ligaments. Traditional posterior-stabilized (PS) TKA designs, on the other hand, simplify knee kinematics and may improve TKA cost-effectiveness. The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes of patients who underwent primary TKA using either a traditional PS or kinematically designed TKA.

METHODS

This retrospective study examined all patients who underwent primary TKA using either a kinematically or a traditional PS designed TKA implant, with a minimum follow-up of 2 years. Patient demographics, complications, readmissions, revision rates and causes, range of motion (ROM) and patient reported outcomes (KOOS, JR) were compared between groups. Kaplan-Meier survivorship analysis was performed to estimate freedom from revision, and multivariate regression was performed to control for confounding variables.

RESULTS

A total of 396 TKAs [173 (43.7%) with a kinematic design, 223 (56.3%) with a traditional design] with a mean follow-up of 3.48 ± 1.51 years underwent analysis. Revision rates did not differ between groups (9.8% vs. 6.7%, p = 0.418). In Kaplan-Meier analysis at 2-year follow-up, freedom from all-cause revision (96.4% vs. 93.1%, p = 0.139) were similar between groups. The two cohorts had no significant difference in aseptic loosening at 2 years (99.6% vs. 97.1, p = 0.050) and at latest follow up (92.7% vs. 96.4%, p = 0.279). KOOS, JR scores and post-operative ROM were similar between groups.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated similar mid-term outcomes following the use of both a kinematically designed and a traditionally designed implant in primary TKA patients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Retrospective study-III.

High rate of tibial debonding and failure in a popular knee replacement

Aims

Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a common and safe orthopaedic procedure. Zimmer Biomet's NexGen is the second most popular brand of implant used in the UK. The primary cause of revision after the first year is aseptic loosening. We present our experience of using this implant, with significant concerns around its performance with regards early aseptic loosening of the tibial component.

Methods

A retrospective, single-surgeon review was carried out of all of the NexGen Legacy Posterior Stabilized (LPS) TKAs performed in this institute. The specific model used for the index procedures was the NexGen Complete Knee System (Legacy Knee-Posterior Stabilized LPS-Flex Articular Surface, LPS-Flex Femoral Component Option, and Stemmed Nonaugmentable Tibial Component Option).

Results

Between 2013 and 2016, 352 NexGen TKAs were carried out on 331 patients. A total of 62 TKAs have been revised to date, giving an all-cause revision rate of 17.6% at a minimum of five years. Three of these revisions were due to infection. Overall, 59 of the revisions were performed for aseptic loosening (16.7%) of the tibial component. The tibial component was removed intraoperatively without instrumentation due to significant tibial debonding between the implant-cement interface.

Conclusion

While overall, we believe that early aseptic loosening is multi-factorial in nature, the significantly high aseptic revision rate, as seen by an experienced fellowship-trained arthroplasty surgeon, has led us to believe that there is a fundamental issue with this NexGen implant design. Continued implant surveillance and rigorous review across all regions using this particular implant is warranted based on the concerning findings described here.

Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(6):495–501.