The influence of the twin peg design on femoral Interface temperature and maximum load to failure in cemented Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty

Comparison of cementless twin-peg, cemented twin-peg and cemented single-peg femoral component migration after medial unicompartmental knee replacement: a 5-year randomized RSA study

BACKGROUND

The component design and fixation method of joint arthroplasty may affect component migration and survival. The aim of this study was to compare fixation of cementless twin-peg (CLTP), cemented twin-peg (CTP) and cemented single-peg (CSP) femoral components of medial unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR).

METHODS

Eighty patients (mean age = 63 years, 48 males) with medial knee osteoarthritis were randomized in three ways to CLTP (n = 25), CTP (n = 26) or CSP (n = 29) femoral UKR components. The patients were followed 5 years postoperatively with RSA, bone mineral density (BMD), PROMs and radiological evaluation of radiolucent lines (RLL), femoral component flexion angle and complications.

RESULTS

At the 5-year follow-up, femoral component total translation was comparable between the three groups (p = 0.60). Femoral component internal rotation was 0.50° (95% CI 0.3; 0.69) for the CLTP group, 0.58° (95% CI 0.38; 0.77) for the CTP group and 0.25° (95% CI 0.07; 0.43) for the CSP group (p = 0.01). BMD decreased peri-prosthetically (range - 11.5%; - 14.0%) until 6-month follow-up and increased toward the 5-year follow-up (range - 3.6%; - 5.8%). BMD change did not correlate with component migration. Lower flexion angle was correlated with higher 5-year subsidence, total translation, varus rotation and maximum total point motion (p = 0.01). Two patients (1 CLTP, 1 CTP) had RLL in the posterior zone. There were two revisions.

CONCLUSION

At 5-year follow-up, fixation of UKA femoral components with twin-peg was not superior to the single-peg design. Cementless and cemented twin-peg femoral components had similar fixation. A lower flexion angle was correlated with higher component migration.

Did a New Design of the Oxford Unicompartmental Knee Prosthesis Result in Improved Survival? A Study From the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register 2012-2021

BACKGROUND

Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) has generally shown higher revision rates than TKA, and this is particularly true for the femoral component. A twin-peg femoral component (Oxford Partial) has replaced the single-peg version (Oxford Phase III) of the widely used Oxford medial UKA, with the aim of improving femoral component fixation. The introduction of the Oxford Partial Knee also included a fully uncemented option. However, there has been relatively little evidence regarding the effect of these changes on implant survival and revision diagnoses from groups not associated with the implant design.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

Using data from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register, we asked: (1) Has the 5-year implant survival (free from revision for any cause) improved with the medial Oxford unicompartmental knee after the introduction of new designs? (2) Did the causes of revision change between the old and new designs? (3) Is there a difference in risk for specific revision causes between the uncemented and cemented versions of the new design?

METHODS

We performed a registry-based observational study using data from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register, a nationwide, mandatory and governmental registry with a high reporting rate. Between 2012 and 2021, 7549 Oxford UKAs were performed, and 105 were excluded due to combinations of the three designs, lateral compartment replacement, or hybrid fixation, leaving 908 cemented Oxford Phase III single-peg (used from 2012 to 2017), 4715 cemented Oxford Partial twin-peg (used from 2012 to 2021), and 1821 uncemented Oxford Partial twin-peg (used from 2014 to 2021), UKAs available for the analysis. The Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression multivariate analysis were used to find the 5-year implant survival and the risk of revision (hazard ratio), when adjusting for age, gender, diagnosis, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, and time period. The risk of revision for any cause and the risk of revision for specific causes were compared, first for the older with the two new designs, and second for the cemented with the uncemented version of the new design. Revision was defined as any operation exchanging or removing implant parts.

RESULTS

The 5-year Kaplan-Meier overall implant survival (free from revision for any cause) for the medial Oxford Partial unicompartmental knee did not improve over the study period. The 5-year Kaplan-Meier survival was different (p = 0.03) between the groups: it was 92% (95% confidence interval [CI] 90% to 94%) for the cemented Oxford III, 94% (95% CI 93% to 95%) for the cemented Oxford Partial, and 94% (95% CI 92% to 95%) for the uncemented Oxford Partial. However, the overall risk of revision during the first 5 years was not different between the groups (Cox regression HR 0.8 [95% CI 0.6 to 1.0]; p = 0.09 and 1.0 [95% CI 0.7 to 1.4]; p = 0.89 for the cemented Oxford Partial and the uncemented Oxford Partial, respectively, compared with cemented Oxford III [HR 1]). The uncemented Oxford Partial had a higher risk of revision for infection (HR 3.6 [95% CI 1.2 to 10.5]; p = 0.02) compared with the cemented Oxford III. The uncemented Oxford Partial had a lower risk of revision for pain (HR 0.5 [95% CI 0.2 to 1.0]; p = 0.045) and instability (HR 0.3 [95% CI 0.1 to 0.9]; p = 0.03) compared with the cemented Oxford III. The cemented Oxford Partial had a lower risk of revision for aseptic femoral loosening (HR 0.3 [95% CI 0.1 to 1.0]; p = 0.04) compared with the cemented Oxford III. When comparing the uncemented and cemented versions of the new design, the uncemented Oxford Partial had a higher risk of revision for periprosthetic fracture (HR 15 [95% CI 4 to 54]; p = 0.001) and infection within the first year (HR 3.0 [95% CI 1.5 to 5.7]; p = 0.001) than the cemented Oxford Partial.

CONCLUSION

Considering that we found no difference in overall risk of revision during the first 5 years but we found a higher risk of revision for infection, periprosthetic fracture, and higher per implant cost, we currently would recommend against the use of uncemented Oxford Partial over the cemented Oxford Partial or the cemented Oxford III.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic study.

A structured evaluation of the symptomatic medial Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA)

Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) has several advantages over total knee arthroplasty; however, in many reports, the risk of revision remains higher after UKA.Many reasons for failure of UKA exist.Successful treatment starts with accurate assessment of the symptomatic UKA as a specific mode of failure requires a specific solution.A structured and comprehensive evaluation aids assessment of the symptomatic UKA.This review provides an overview of the causes for a symptomatic medial UKA, its risk factors, diagnostic modalities that can be used, and briefly discusses treatment options. Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2021;6:850-860. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.6.200105.

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.