Aims. Knee arthroplasty surgery is a highly effective treatment for arthritis and disorders of the knee. There are a wide variety of implant brands and types of knee arthroplasty available to surgeons. As a result of a number of highly publicized failures, arthroplasty surgery is highly regulated in the UK and many other countries through national registries, introduced to monitor implant performance, surgeons, and hospitals. With time, the options available within many brand portfolios have grown, with alternative tibial or femoral components, tibial insert materials, or shapes and patella resurfacings. In this study we have investigated the effect of the expansion of implant brand portfolios and where there may be a lack of transparency around a brand name. We also aimed to establish the potential numbers of compatible implant construct combinations. Methods. Hypothetical implant brand portfolios were proposed, and the number of compatible implant construct combinations was calculated. Results. A simple knee portfolio with cemented cruciate-retaining (CR) and posterior-stabilized (PS) components, with and without a patella, has four combinations. If there are two options available for each component, the numbers double for each option, resulting in 32 combinations. The effect of adding a third option multiplies the number by 1.3. Introducing compatible uncemented options, with the effect of hybrids, multiplies the number by 4. An implant portfolio with two femoral components (both in CR and PS), with two insert options and a patella, all in cemented and uncemented versions leads to 192 possible compatible implant construct combinations. There are implant brands available to surgeons with many more than two options. Conclusion. This study demonstrates that the addition of multiple variants within a knee brand portfolio leads to a large number (many hundreds) of compatible implant construct combinations. Revision rates of implant combinations are not currently reviewed at this level of granularity, leading to the risk of camouflage of true outcomes. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(10):1555–1560

Abstract. Introduction. There are a wide variety of implant brands and types of knee replacement available to surgeons. With time, the options available within many implant brand portfolios has grown, with alternative tibial or femoral components, tibial insert materials or shapes and patella resurfacings. Aim. To investigate the effect of the expansion of implant brand portfolios, and to establish the potential numbers of compatible implant construct combinations. Methods. Hypothetical implant brand portfolios were proposed, and the number of compatible implant construct combinations was calculated. Results. A simple knee portfolio with cemented cruciate-retaining (CR) and posterior-stabilised (PS) components, with and without a patella has 4 combinations. If there are two options available for each, the numbers double for each option, resulting in 32 combinations. The effect of adding a third option multiplies the number by 1.3. Introducing compatible uncemented options, with the effect of hybrids multiplies the number by 4. An implant portfolio with two femoral components (both in CR and PS), with two insert options and a patella, all in cemented and uncemented versions leads to 192 possible compatible implant construct combinations. There are implant brands available with many more than two options available for use. Conclusion. This study demonstrates that the addition of multiple variants within a knee brand portfolio leads to a large number (many hundreds) of compatible implant construct combinations. Revision rates of implant combinations are not currently reviewed at this level of granularity, leading to the risk of implant camouflage

Aims. The outcomes of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) depend on many factors. The impact of implant design on patient-reported outcomes is unknown. Our goal was to evaluate the patient-reported outcomes and satisfaction after primary TKA in patients with osteoarthritis undergoing primary TKA using five different brands of posterior-stabilized implant. Patients and Methods. Using our institutional registry, we identified 4135 patients who underwent TKA using one of the five most common brands of implant. These included Biomet Vanguard (Zimmer Biomet, Warsaw, Indiana) in 211 patients, DePuy/Johnson & Johnson Sigma (DePuy Synthes, Raynham, Massachusetts) in 222, Exactech Optetrak Logic (Exactech, Gainesville, Florida) in 1508, Smith & Nephew Genesis II (Smith & Nephew, London, United Kingdom) in 1415, and Zimmer NexGen (Zimmer Biomet) in 779 patients. Patients were evaluated preoperatively using the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Lower Extremity Activity Scale (LEAS), and 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey questionnaire (SF-12). Demographics including age, body mass index, Charlson Comorbidity Index, American Society of Anethesiologists status, sex, and smoking status were collected. Postoperatively, two-year KOOS, LEAS, SF-12, and satisfaction scores were compared between groups. Results. Outcomes were available for 4069 patients (98%) at two years postoperatively. In multiple regression analysis, which separately compared each implant group with the aggregate of all others, there were no clinically significant differences in the change of KOOS score from baseline to two-year follow-up between any of the groups. More than 80% of patients in each group were satisfied at this time in all domains. In a multivariate regression model, patients in the NexGen group were the most likely to be satisfied (odds ratio (OR) 1.63; p = 0.006) and Optetrak Logic patients were the least likely to be satisfied (OR 0.60; p < 0.001). Conclusion. TKA provides improvement in function and satisfaction regardless of the type of implant. We could not demonstrate superiority of one design above others across these groups of implants, and any price premium for one above the other systems may not be justified. Healthcare administrators may find these similarities in outcomes helpful when negotiating purchasing contracts. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B(7 Supple C):48–54

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

Abstract. Introduction. The UK National Joint Registry(NJR) has not reported total knee replacement (TKR)survivorship based on design philosophy alone, unlike its international counterparts. We report outcomes of implant survivorship based on design philosophy using data from NJR's 2020 annual report. Methodology. All TKR implants with an identifiable design philosophy from NJR data were included. Cumulative revision data for cruciate-retaining(CR), posterior stabilised(PS), mobile-bearing(MB) design philosophies was derived from merged NJR data. Cumulative revision data for individual brands of implants with the medial pivot(MP) philosophy were used to calculate overall survivorship for this design philosophy. The all-cause revision was used as the endpoint and calculated to 15 years follow-up with Kaplan-Meier curves. Results. 1,144,384 TKRs were included. CR is the most popular design philosophy(67.4%), followed by PS(23.1%), MB(6.9%), and least commonly MP(2.6%). MP and CR implants showed the best survivorship(95.7% and 95.6% respectively) at 15 years which is statistically significant at, and beyond, 10 years. Observed survivorship was lower at all time points with the PS and MB implants(94.5% for both designs at 15 years). Conclusions. While all design philosophies considered in this study survive well, CR and MP designs offer statistically superior survivorship at and beyond 10 years. MP design performs better than CR beyond 13 years yet, remains the least popular design philosophy used. Publishing data based on knee arthroplasty design philosophy would help surgeons when making decisions on implant choice

Background. The modern modular implants allow surgeons to combine different combinations of components within the same brand of which some may have completely different design. During 1999–2012 the same cemented femur component was used together with a cemented stemmed tibia baseplate and also against a cemented pegged tibia baseplate. We decided to compare the revision rate of total knee arthroplasties (TKAs) using these two tibia baseplates. Methods. This is a register study. During 1999–2012, 32,429 cemented, CR TKA's of a specific brand were reported to the Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Register (SKAR). The part numbers for the femur, tibia and insert (in modular implants) were available in 99.2% of cases. The most common combination used the cemented CR femur against a cemented stemmed baseplate in 50.3% of cases while the same CR femur was used against a cemented pegged baseplate in 8.3% of cases, mainly at two hospitals. In order to make the material more comparable, only patients having osteoarthritis (OA) were included and only TKAs using two types of regular constraint inserts and in which the patella had been left un-resurfaced. Chi-Square test was used to investigate gender distribution in the groups and t-test for the mean age at surgery. Kaplan Meier analysis and the log-rank test were used to evaluate the risk of revision until the end of 2016. A p-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results. After exclusions, there were 15,287 knees with the stemmed and 2,479 with the pegged tibia baseplate. The mean follow-up time was 8.1 years (range 0–18). The proportion of women in the stemmed group was 59% and 60% in the pegged group (p=0.32) and the mean age at surgery for the groups was 69.9 years and 70.0 years, respectively (p=0.41). The cumulative revision rate (CRR) at 15 years for TKAs using the stemmed baseplate was 3.0% (95% CI: 2.6–3.5) as compared to 5.8% (95% CI: 4.0–8.3) for the pegged baseplate (p=0.003). When only revisions for loosening were considered, the CRR was respectively 0.6% (95% CI: 0.4–0. 9) and 3. 8% (95% CI: 2.3–6.3) (p<0.001). Conclusion. We found that TKAs using the pegged base plate had significantly higher risk for revision, both for all reasons as well as for only loosening. As the pegged baseplate surgeries were performed mostly at only two hospitals it is possible that local factors are to blame. However, considering that after stopping using the pegged baseplate, the two hospitals performed least as well as other hospitals using the same brand we think it is likely that the pegged plate has a higher risk of loosening and that our observation warrants that the performance of pegged plates is investigated in other registers

Introduction. Hip and knee replacements are being performed at increasing rates and currently account for one of the largest procedure expenditures in the Medicare budget. Outcomes of total knee replacement (TKR) depend on surgeon, patient and implant factors. The impact that the specific implants might have on patient-reported outcomes is unknown. The primary purpose of this study was to evaluate the patient-reported functional outcomes and satisfaction after primary total knee arthroplasty in patients with osteoarthritis who underwent TKR using five different brands of posterior-stabilized implants. Specifically, the aim was to evaluate for any difference in patient-reported outcomes based on implant brand used. The hypothesis was that there would be no difference in functional outcome that could be attributed to the implant used in primary TKR. Methods. Using our institution's total joint arthroplasty registry, we identified 4,135 patients who underwent total knee replacement (TKR) using one of the five most common implant brands used at our institution. These included Biomet Vanguard (N=211 patients), Depuy/Johnson&Johnson Sigma (N=221), Exactech OptetrakLogic (N=1,507), Smith & Nephew Genesis II (N=1,414), and Zimmer NexGen (N=779). Only posterior-stabilized primary TKRs in patients with osteoarthritis were included. Patients were evaluated preoperatively using the Knee Osteoarthritis Outcomes Score (KOOS), Lower Extremity Activity Scale (LEAS), and Short Form-12 (SF-12). Demographics including age, body mass index (BMI), Charleston Comorbidity Index (CCI), ASA physical status classification, sex, and smoking status were collected. Postoperatively, 2-year KOOS, LEAS, SF-12, and satisfaction scores were compared between implant groups. Results. At 2-year follow-up, patient-reported outcome scores were available for a total of 4,069 patients. In multiple regression analysis which separately compared each implant group to the aggregate of all others, after accounting for age, BMI, CCI, ASA status, and sex, there were no clinically significant differences in KOOS score changes from baseline to 2-year follow-up between any of the implants. In 2-year satisfaction, >80% of patients in each implant group were satisfied in all domains measured. In the multivariate regression model, patients in the NexGen group had the highest likelihood of being satisfied (OR 1.63, p=0.006) and OptetrakLogic patients had the lowest likelihood of being satisfied (OR 0.60, P<0.001) although these differences were below the minimal clinically important thresholds. Conclusion. TKR provides patient satisfaction and improvement in function regardless of implant type. While some implant systems had higher outcome scores than others, these differences were all below clinically significant thresholds. Whether these differences are a function of surgeon expertise or implant design is unknown. Future research should focus on identifying specific design elements that contribute to improved patient outcomes. Healthcare administrators may find the similarities in clinical outcomes to be a useful consideration when negotiating implant purchasing contracts

We evaluated the rates of survival and cause of revision of seven different brands of cemented primary total knee replacement (TKR) in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register during the years 1994 to 2009. Revision for any cause, including resurfacing of the patella, was the primary endpoint. Specific causes of revision were secondary outcomes. Three posterior cruciate-retaining (PCR) fixed modular-bearing TKRs, two fixed non-modular bearing PCR TKRs and two mobile-bearing posterior cruciate-sacrificing TKRs were investigated in a total of 17 782 primary TKRs. The median follow-up for the implants ranged from 1.8 to 6.9 years. Kaplan-Meier 10-year survival ranged from 89.5% to 95.3%. Cox’s relative risk (RR) was calculated relative to the fixed modular-bearing Profix knee (the most frequently used TKR in Norway), and ranged from 1.1 to 2.6. The risk of revision for aseptic tibial loosening was higher in the mobile-bearing LCS Classic (RR 6.8 (95% confidence interval (CI) 3.8 to 12.1)), the LCS Complete (RR 7.7 (95% CI 4.1 to 14.4)), the fixed modular-bearing Duracon (RR 4.5 (95% CI 1.8 to 11.1)) and the fixed non-modular bearing AGC Universal TKR (RR 2.5 (95% CI 1.3 to 5.1)), compared with the Profix. These implants (except AGC Universal) also had an increased risk of revision for femoral loosening (RR 2.3 (95% CI 1.1 to 4.8), RR 3.7 (95% CI 1.6 to 8.9), and RR 3.4 (95% CI 1.1 to 11.0), respectively). These results suggest that aseptic loosening is related to design in TKR. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:636–42

Aims

The mean age of patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has reduced with time. Younger patients have increased expectations following TKA. Aseptic loosening of the tibial component is the most common cause of failure of TKA in the UK. Interest in cementless TKA has re-emerged due to its encouraging results in the younger patient population. We review a large series of tantalum trabecular metal cementless implants in patients who are at the highest risk of revision surgery.

Aims

This study compared patient-reported outcomes of three total knee arthroplasty (TKA) designs from one manufacturer: one cruciate-retaining (CR) design, and two cruciate-sacrificing designs, anterior-stabilized (AS) and posterior-stabilized (PS).

Aims

This prospective study reports longitudinal, within-patient, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) over a 15-year period following cemented single radius total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Secondary aims included reporting PROMs trajectory, 15-year implant survival, and patient attrition from follow-up.

Aims

The aim of this study was to assess factors associated with the estimated lifetime risk of revision surgery after primary knee arthroplasty (KA).

Aims

Debate remains whether the patella should be resurfaced during total knee replacement (TKR). For non-resurfaced TKRs, we estimated what the revision rate would have been if the patella had been resurfaced, and examined the risk of re-revision following secondary patellar resurfacing.

Purpose. Little information is available relating to patient demographics, reasons for failure and types of implants used at time of revision following failure of patellofemoral joint (PFJ) replacement. Methods and Results. Using data extracted from the NJR a series of 128 PFJ revisions in whom the index primary procedure was also recorded in the NJR were identified. This cohort therefore represents early failures of PFJ replacements revised over a 2 year period which were implanted after April 2003 and included revisions of 11 different brands of PFJ replacement from 6 different manufacturers. The median age at primary procedure was 59.0 (Range 21.1 to 83.2) of which 43 patients were <55 years old (31 males, 97 females). 19% of the revisions were performed in the first year after implantation, in the second year in 33 cases (26%), in the third year in 39 cases (31%) and between years 4 to 7 in 32 patients (25%). The commonest reasons for revision were pain (35%), aseptic loosening (18%), subluxation, dislocation or instability (11%), PE wear (7%) and component malalignment (6%). No reason for revision was stated in 30% and only 2 cases were revised for infection. Reason for revision differed according to year of failure but was consistent with respect to age at primary surgery. PFJ revision reason differed from those stated for revisions of primary UKR and TKR from the same period with pain being more prevalent and aseptic loosening and infection being less prevalent in the PFJ group. Single stage revision was performed in 124 cases and 118 underwent cemented revision. Conclusion. Limited data exists on the demographics and outcome for patellofemoral arthroplasty revision. This study is the first to identify reasons for failure in a large cohort and relate such to duration of primary component

Aims

To establish our early clinical results of a new total knee arthroplasty (TKA) tibial component introduced in 2013 and compare it to other designs in use at our hospital during the same period.

Introduction. The role of porosity in the longevity of polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) bone cement mantles remains unclear, although porosity reduction is probably desirable. It is not known whether pore patterns, pore distribution or pore morphology contribute to failure, since it is difficult to assess these features with traditional techniques. We used a novel microtomographic technique to quantitatively and qualitatively assess porosity in PMMA cements of differing viscosities to establish whether pore distribution can be effectively assessed and to document any differences in porosity (in both quantity, distribution and morphology). Each cement was also examined with and without the addition of vacuum, since this is thought to reduce porosity. Methods and materials. Four PMMA bone cements of different viscosities (three of the same brand and the fourth chosen due to its popularity) were prepared and moulded according to established protocols (ASTM F451-99a), with and without the addition of vacuum. 25 samples per group (200 total) were prepared and densities for each sample calculated using Archimedes' principle. Four samples per group (total 32) were randomly selected for further analysis. These samples underwent micro-computer tomography (micro-CT) at a magnification of 20× and slice thickness of 13.67μm and reconstructed images were analysed with in-house developed software to measure pore size and volume. Results were analysed and compared with the two-sample T-test assuming significance at P<0.05. Qualitative assessment of pore character and distribution was made using three dimensional (3D) reconstruction. Results. Densities and mean total pore volume showed an overall reduction in porosity with vacuum. Mean pore volume (MPV) was not significantly different between samples due to the huge range of pore sizes. Qualitative assessment revealed a striking, distinctive pore distribution between cements with an asymmetric distribution in the high viscosity group. Pore size was also qualitatively distinct between cement types and groups with and without vacuum. Conclusion. Micro-CT allows detailed in vitro quantitative and qualitative assessment of porosity in PMMA cement. Pore volume, architecture and volumetric distribution differ in cements of differing viscosity and with or without the application of vacuum. This effect is marked enough to allow distinction between cements based on their micro-CT appearances. Further study using this technique in combination with other methods (such as quantitative analysis of 3D pore distribution) may shed light on the failure mechanisms in PMMA cement mantles, particularly with regard to the role of pore orientation, distribution and size

Aims

Medial pivot (MP) total knee arthroplasties (TKAs) were designed to mimic native knee kinematics with their deep medial congruent fitting of the tibia to the femur almost like a ball-on-socket, and a flat lateral part. GMK Sphere is a novel MP implant. Our primary aim was to study the migration pattern of the tibial tray of this TKA.

Aim

There has been a significant reduction in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) procedures recorded in Australia. This follows several national joint registry studies documenting high UKA revision rates when compared to total knee arthroplasty (TKA). With the recent introduction of robotically assisted UKA procedures, it is hoped that outcomes improve. This study examines the cumulative revision rate of UKA procedures implanted with a newly introduced robotic system and compares the results to one of the best performing non-robotically assisted UKA prostheses, as well as all other non-robotically assisted UKA procedures.

Aims

Antibiotic-loaded bone cements (ALBCs) may offer early protection against the formation of bacterial biofilm after joint arthroplasty. Use in hip arthroplasty is widely accepted, but there is a lack of evidence in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The objective of this study was to evaluate the use of ALBC in a large population of TKA patients.

Aims

Loosening of the tibial component after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a common indication for revision. Increasing the strength of the initial tibial implant/cement interface is desirable. There is little information about the surgical techniques that lead to the highest strength. We investigated the effects of eight variables on the strength of the initial tibial baseplate/cement interface.