Introduction. The use of stems in TKA revision surgery is well established.
Introduction. The use of stems in TKA revision surgery is well established.
Cementless femoral components have an excellent track record that includes efficient implantation and long-term survival, thus are the predominant stem utilised in North America. Femoral component stability and resistance to subsidence are critical for osseointegration and clinical success. Implant design, surgical technique, anatomic fit, and patient characteristics, such as bone quality, can all effect initial implant stability and resistance to subsidence. Variability in stem shape and in the anatomy of the proximal femoral metaphysis has been implicated in the failure of some stem designs. Biologic fixation obtained with osseointegration of cementless implants may improve implant longevity in young, active, and obese patients. Lack of intimate fit can lead to clinical complications such as subsidence, aseptic loosening, and peri-prosthetic fracture. Currently, there are several stem designs, all of which aim to achieve maximal femoral stability and minimal subsidence and include: Fit and Fill / Double Taper Proximally Porous Coated
Little information exists regarding optimal tibial stem usage in revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) utilising a tibial trabecular metal (TM) cone. The purpose of this study was to compare 1) functional outcomes, 2) radiographic outcomes, and 3) implant survivorship in rTKA utilising TM cones combined with either short stems (SS) or long stems (LS) at minimum two-years clinical follow-up. In this retrospective, multi-centre study, patients undergoing TM cone utilising rTKA between 2008 and 2019 were included. Patients were divided into: SS group (no diaphyseal engagement), and LS group (diaphyseal engagement). All relevant clinical charts and post-operative radiographs were examined. Oxford Knee Score (OKS) and EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D-5L) data were collected at most recent follow-up. In total, 44 patients were included: 18 in the SS group and 26 in the LS group. The mean time of follow-up was 4.0 years. Failure free survival was 94.5% for the SS group and 92.3% for the LS group. All failures were for prosthetic joint infections managed with debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention. At most recent follow-up, 3 patients demonstrated radiographic signs of lucency (1 SS 2 LS, p = 1) and the mean OKS were 37 ± 4 and 36 ± 6 (p = 0.73) in the SS and LS groups, respectively. Tibial SS combined with TM cones performed as well as LS in rTKA at minimum two-years follow-up. A tibial SS in combination with a TM cone is a reliable technique to achieve stable and durable fixation in rTKA.
The demand for revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has grown significantly in recent years. The two major fixation methods for stems in revision TKA include cemented and ‘hybrid’ fixation. We explore the optimal fixation method using data from recent, well-designed comparative studies. We performed a systematic review of comparative studies published within the last 10 years with a minimum follow-up of 24 months. To allow for missing data, a random-effects meta-analysis of all available cases was performed. The odds ratio (OR) for the relevant outcome was calculated with 95% confidence intervals. The effects of small studies were analyzed using a funnel plot, and asymmetry was assessed using Egger's test. The primary outcome measure was all-cause failure. Secondary outcome measures included all-cause revision, aseptic revision and radiographic failure. There was a significantly lower failure rate for hybrid stems when compared to cemented stems (p = 0.006) (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.42-0.87). Heterogeneity was 4.3% and insignificant (p = 0.39). There was a trend toward superior hybrid performance for all other outcome measures including all-cause re-revision, aseptic re-revision and radiographic failure. Recent evidence suggests a significantly lower failure rate for hybrid stems in revision TKA. There is also a trend favoring the use of hybrid stems for all outcome variables assessed in this study. This is the first time a significant difference in outcome has been demonstrated through systematic review of these two modes of stem fixation. We therefore recommend the use, where possible, of hybrid stems in revision TKA.
There has been an evolution in revision hip arthroplasty towards cementless reconstruction. Whilst cemented arthroplasty works well in the primary setting, the difficulty with achieving cement fixation in femoral revisions has led to a move towards removal of cement, where it was present, and the use of ingrowth components. These have included proximally loading or, more commonly, distally fixed stems. We have been through various iterations of these, notably with extensively porous coated cobalt chrome stems and recently with taper-fluted titanium stems. As a result of this, cemented stems have become much less popular in the revision setting. Allied to concerns about fixation and longevity of cemented fixation revision, there were also worries in relation to bone cement implantation syndrome when large cement loads were pressurised into the femoral canal at the time of stem cementation. This was particularly the case with longer stems. Technical measures are available to reduce that risk but the fear is nevertheless there. In spite of this direction of travel and these concerns, there is, however, still a role for cemented stems in revision hip arthroplasty. This role is indeed expanding. First and foremost, the use of cement allows for local antibiotic delivery using a variety of drugs both instilled in the cement at the time of manufacture or added by the surgeon when the cement is mixed. This has advantages when dealing with periprosthetic infection. Thus, cement can be used both as interval spacers but also for definitive fixation when dealing with periprosthetic hip infection. The reconstitution of bone stock is always attractive, particularly in younger patients or those with stove pipe canals. This is achieved well using impaction grafting with cement and is another extremely good use of cement. In the very elderly or those in whom proximal femoral resection is needed at the time of revision surgery, distal fixation with cement provides a good solution for immediate weight bearing and does not have the high a risk of fracture seen with large cementless stems. Cement is also useful in cases of proximal femoral deformity or where cement has been used in a primary arthroplasty previously. We have learnt that if the cement is well-fixed then the bond of cement-to-cement is excellent and therefore retention of the cement mantle and recementation into that previous mantle is a great advantage. This avoids the risks of cement removal and allows for much easier fixation.
For most revision total knee replacement there is associated soft tissue and bone loss. A constrained condylar implant can be useful in improving the stability of the knee after revision. Augmentation is commonly used to deal with bone loss on the femoral and tibial side of the joint.
For most revision total knee replacement there is associated soft tissue and bone loss. A constrained condylar implant can be useful in improving the stability of the knee after revision. Augmentation is commonly used to deal with bone loss on the femoral and tibial side of the joint.
For most complex primary total knee replacement there is associated soft tissue and bone loss. A constrained condylar implant can be useful in improving the stability of the knee after revision. Augmentation is commonly used to deal with bone loss on the femoral and tibial side of the joint.
Some DEFINITIONS are necessary: “STEMS” refers to “intramedullary stem extensions”, which may be of a variety of lengths and diameters, fixed with cement, porous coating or press fit alone and which may be modular or an inherent part of the prosthesis. The standard extension keel on the tibia does not qualify as a “stem (extension)”. COMPLEX implies multiple variables acting on the end result of the arthroplasty with the capability of inducing failure, as well as necessary variations to the standard surgical technique. A lesser degree of predictability is implied. More specifically, the elements usually found in an arthritic knee and used for the arthroplasty are missing, so that cases of COMPLEX primary TKA include: Soft tissue coverage-(not relevant here), Extensor mechanism deficiency-patellectomy, Severe deformity, Extra-articular deformity, Instability: Varus valgus, Instability: Plane of motion, Instability: Old PCL rupture, Dislocated patella, Stiffness, Medical conditions: Neuromuscular disorder, Ipsilateral arthroplasty, Prior incisions, Fixation hardware, Osteopenia, Ipsilateral hip arthrodesis, Ipsilateral below knee amputation, etc. Complexity includes MORE than large deformity, i.e., success with large deformity does NOT mean success with constrained implants regardless of indication. In addition, the degree of constraint must be specified to be meaningful. NECESSARY presumably this means: “necessary to ensure durable fixation in the face of poor bone quality or more mechanically constrained” and SUFFICIENT suggests that stems, by themselves or in some shape of form, by themselves “will ensure success (specifically here) of fixation”. If we can start with the second proposal, that
There is renewed concern surrounding the potential for corrosion at the modular head-neck junction to cause early failure in modern hip implants. Although taper corrosion involves a complex interplay of many factors, previous studies have correlated decreasing flexural rigidity of the femoral trunnion with an increased likelihood of corrosion at retrieval. A multicenter retrieval analysis of 85 modular femoral stems was performed to calculate the flexural rigidity of various femoral trunnions.
A matched comparison was made between femoral neck-preserving short, tapered stems (n = 50) and conventional length femoral stems (n = 50) in cementless total hip arthroplasty between January 2008 and January 2012. Patients were matched for age, sex, body mass index, height, surgical approach, and surgeon. In group A, mean preoperative HHS and WOMAC scores of 55.0 and 53.0, respectively, improved to mean postoperative scores of 98.6 and 3.3, respectively, at an average follow–up of 37.2 months. In group B, mean preoperative HHS and WOMAC scores of 53.0 and 49.5, respectively, improved to mean postoperative scores 97.8 and 4.4, respectively, at an average follow–up of 35.3 months. In addition, no significant differences in mean postoperative HHS (
Shoulder arthroplasty is effective at restoring function and relieving pain in patients suffering from glenohumeral arthritis; however, cortex thinning has been significantly associated with larger press-fit stems (fill ratio = 0.57 vs 0.48; P = 0.013)1. Additionally, excessively stiff implant-bone constructs are considered undesirable, as high initial stiffness of rigid fracture fixation implants has been related to premature loosening and an ultimate failure of the implant-bone interface2. Consequently, one objective which has driven the evolution of humeral stem design has been the reduction of stress-shielding induced bone resorption; this in-part has led to the introduction of short stems, which rely on metaphyseal fixation. However, the selection of short stem diametral (i.e., thickness) sizing remains subjective, and its impact on the resulting stem-bone construct stiffness has yet to be quantified. Eight paired cadaveric humeri (age = 75±15 years) were reconstructed with surgeon selected ‘standard’ sized and 2mm ‘oversized’ short-stemmed implants. Standard stem sizing was based on a haptic assessment of stem and broach stability per typical surgical practice. Anteroposterior radiographs were taken, and the metaphyseal and diaphyseal fill ratios were quantified. Each humerus was then potted in polymethyl methacrylate bone cement and subjected to 2000 cycles of compressive loading representing 90º forward flexion to simulate postoperative seating. Following this, a custom 3D printed metal implant adapter was affixed to the stem, which allowed for compressive loading in-line with the stem axis (Fig.1). Each stem was then forced to subside by 5mm at a rate of 1mm/min, from which the compressive stiffness of the stem-bone construct was assessed. The bone-implant construct stiffness was quantified as the slope of the linear portion of the resulting force-displacement curves. The metaphyseal and diaphyseal fill ratios were 0.50±0.10 and 0.45±0.07 for the standard sized stems and 0.50±0.06 and 0.52±0.06 for the oversized stems, respectively. Neither was found to correlate significantly with the stem-bone construct stiffness measure (metaphysis: P = 0.259, diaphysis: P = 0.529); however, the diaphyseal fill ratio was significantly different between standard and oversized stems (P < 0.001, Power = 1.0). Increasing the stem size by 2mm had a significant impact on the stiffness of the stem-bone construct (P = 0.003, Power = 0.971; Fig.2). Stem oversizing yielded a construct stiffness of −741±243N/mm; more than double that of the standard stems, which was −334±120N/mm. The fill ratios reported in the present investigation match well with those of a finite element assessment of oversizing short humeral stems3. This work complements that investigation's conclusion, that small reductions in diaphyseal fill ratio may reduce the likelihood of stress shielding, by also demonstrating that oversizing stems by 2mm dramatically increases the stiffness of the resulting implant-bone construct, as stiffer implants have been associated with decreased bone stimulus4 and premature loosening2. The present findings suggest that even a small, 2mm, variation in the thickness of short stem humeral components can have a marked influence on the resulting stiffness of the implant-bone construct. This highlights the need for more objective intraoperative methods for selecting stem size to provide guidelines for appropriate diametral sizing. For any figures or tables, please contact the authors directly.
Revision surgeries for orthopaedic infections are done in two stages – one surgery to implant an antibiotic spacer to clear the infection and another to install a permanent implant. A permanent porous implant, that can be loaded with antibiotics and allow for single-stage revision surgery, will benefit patients and save healthcare resources. Gyroid structures can be constructed with high porosity, without stress concentrations that can develop in other period porous structures [1] [2]. The purpose of this research is to compare the resulting bone and prosthesis stress distributions when porous versus solid stems are implanted into three proximal humeri with varying bone densities, using finite element models (FEM). Porous humeral stems were constructed in a gyroid structure at porosities of 60%, 70%, and 80% using computer-aided design (CAD) software. These CAD models were analyzed using FEM (Abaqus) to look at the stress distributions within the proximal humerus and the stem components with loads and boundary conditions representing the arm actively maintained at 120˚ of flexion. The stem was assumed to be made of titanium (Ti6Al4V). Three different bone densities were investigated, representing a healthy, an osteopenic, and an osteoporotic humerus, with an average bone shape created using a statistical shape and density model (SSDM) based on 75 cadaveric shoulders (57 males and 18 females, 73 12 years) [3]. The Young's moduli (E) of the cortical and trabecular bones were defined on an element-by-element basis, with a minimum allowable E of 15 MPa. The Von Mises stress distributions in the bone and the stems were compared between different stem scenarios for each bone density model. A preliminary analysis shows an increase in stress values at the proximal-lateral region of the humerus when using the porous stems compared to the solid stem, which becomes more prominent as bone density decreases. With the exception of a few mesh dependent singularities, all three porous stems show stress distributions below the fatigue strength of Ti-6Al-4V (410 MPa) for this loading scenario when employed in the osteopenic and osteoporotic humeri [4]. The 80% porosity stem had a single strut exceeding the fatigue strength when employed in the healthy bone. The results of this study indicate that the more compliant nature of the porous stem geometries may allow for better load transmission through the proximal humeral bone, better matching the stress distributions of the intact bone and possibly mitigating stress-shielding effects. Importantly, this study also indicates that these porous stems have adequate strength for long-term use, as none were predicted to have catastrophic failure under the physiologically-relevant loads. Although these results are limited to a single boney geometry, it is based on the average shape of 75 shoulders and different bone densities are considered. Future work could leverage the shape model for probabilistic models that could explore the effect of stem porosity across a broader population. The development of these models are instrumental in determining if these structures are a viable solution to combatting orthopaedic implant infections.
The 2021 Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry report indicated that total shoulder replacement using both mid head (TMH) length humeral components and reverse arthroplasty (RTSA) had a lower revision rate than stemmed humeral components in anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA) - for all prosthesis types and diagnoses. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of component variables in the various primary total arthroplasty alternatives for osteoarthritis in the shoulder. Data from a large national arthroplasty registry were analysed for the period April 2004 to December 2020. The study population included all primary aTSA, RTSA, and TMH shoulder arthroplasty procedures undertaken for osteoarthritis (OA) using either cross-linked polyethylene (XLPE) or non-cross-linked polyethylene (non XLPE). Due to the previously documented and reported higher revision rate compared to other anatomical total shoulder replacement options, those using a cementless metal backed glenoid components were excluded. The rate of revision was determined by Kaplan-Meir estimates, with comparisons by Cox proportional hazard models. Reasons for revision were also assessed. For a primary diagnosis of OA, aTSA with a cemented XLPE glenoid component had the lowest revision rate with a 12-year cumulative revision rate of 4.7%, compared to aTSA with cemented non-XLPE glenoid component of 8.7%, and RTSA of 6.8%. The revision rate for TMH was lower than aTSA with cemented non-XLPE, but was similar to the other implants at the same length of follow-up. The reason for revision for cemented aTSR was most commonly component loosening, not rotator cuff deficiency. Long stem humeral components matched with XLPE in aTSA achieve a lower revision rate compared to shorter stems, long stems with conventional polyethylene, and RTSA when used to treat shoulder OA. In all these cohorts, loosening, not rotator cuff failure was the most common diagnosis for revision.
This study used model-based radiostereometric analysis (MBRSA) to compare migration of a recently introduced cementless hip stem to an established hip stem of similar design. Novel design features of the newer hip stem included a greater thickness of hydroxyapatite coating and a blended compaction extraction femoral broach. Fifty-seven patients requiring primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) were enrolled at a single centre. Patients were randomized to receive either an Avenir collarless stem and Trilogy IT cup (ZimmerBiomet) or a Corail collarless stem and Pinnacle cup (DePuy Synthes) via a posterior or lateral approach. Both stems are broach-only femoral bone preparation. RSA beads (Halifax Biomedical) were inserted into the proximal femur during surgery. Patients underwent supine RSA imaging a 6 weeks (baseline), 6, 12, and 24 months following surgery. The primary study outcome was total subsidence of the hip stem from baseline to 24 months as well as progression of subsidence between 12 and 24 months. These values were compared against published migration thresholds for well-performing hip stems (0.5mm). The detection limit, or precision, of MBRSA was calculated based on duplicate examinations taken at baseline. Patient reported outcome measures were collected throughout the study and included the Oxford-12 Hip Score (OHS), EuroQoL EQ-5D-5L, Hip Osteoarthritis Score (HOOS) as well as visual analogue scales (VAS) for thigh pain and satisfaction. Analysis comprised of paired and unpaired t-tests with significance set at p≤0.05. Forty-eight patients (30 males) were included for analysis; 7 patients received a non-study hip stem intra-operatively, 1 patient suffered a traumatic dislocation within three weeks of surgery, and 1 patient died within 12 months post-surgery. RSA data was obtained for 45 patients as three patients did not receive RSA beads intra-operatively. Our patient cohort had a mean age of 65.9 years (±;7.2) at the time of surgery and body mass index of 30.5 kg/m2 (±;5.2). No statistical difference in total stem migration was found between the Avenir and Corail stems at 12 months (p=0.045, 95%CI: −0.046 to 0.088) and 24 months (p=0.936, 95% CI: −0.098 to 0.090). Progression of subsidence from 12-24 months was 0.011mm and 0.034mm for the Avenir and Corail groups which were not statistically different (p=0.163, 95%CI: −0.100 to 0.008) between groups and significantly less than the 0.5mm threshold (pNo statistically significant differences existed between study groups for any pre-operative function scores (p>0.05). All patients showed significant functional improvement from pre- to post-surgery and no outcome measures were different between study groups with exception of EQ-5D-5L health visual analogue scale at 12 months which showed marginally superior (p=0.036) scores in the Avenir group. This study was not powered to detect differences in clinical outcomes. This study has demonstrated no statistical difference in subsidence or patient-reported outcomes between the Corail hip stem and the more recently introduced Avenir hip stem. This result is predictable as both stems are of a triple-tapered design, are coated with hydroxyapatite, and utilize a broach-only bone preparation technique. Both stem designs demonstrate migration below 0.5mm suggesting both are low-risk for aseptic loosening in the long-term.
ZrN-multilayer coating is clinically well established in total knee arthroplasty [1-3] and has demonstrated significant reduction in polyethylene wear and metal ion release [4,5]. The goal of our study was to analyze the biotribological behaviour of the ZrN-multilayer coating on a polished cobalt-chromium cemented hip stem. CoCr28Mo6 alloy hip stems with ZrN-multilayer coating (CoreHip®AS) were tested versus an un-coated version. In a worst-case-scenario the stems with ceramic heads have been tested in bovine serum in a severe cement interface debonding condition under a cyclic load of 3,875 N for 15 million cycles. After 1, 3, 5, 10 & 15 million cycles the surface texture was analysed by scanning-electron-microscopy (SEM) and energy-dispersive x-ray (EDX). Metal ion concentration of Co,Cr,Mo was measured by inductively coupled plasma mass spectroscopy (ICP-MS) after each test interval. Based on SEM/EDX analysis, it has been demonstrated that the ZrN-multilayer coating keeps his integrity over 15 million cycles of severe stem cemented interface debonding without any exposure of the CoCr28Mo6 substrate. The ZrN-multilayer coated polished cobalt-chromium cemented hip stem has shown a reduction of Co & Cr metal ion release by two orders of a magnitude, even under severe stem debonding and high interface micro-motion conditions. ZrN-multilayer coating on polished cobalt-chromium cemented hip stems might be a suitable option for further minimisation of Co & Cr metal ion release in total hip arthroplasty. Clinical evidence has to be proven during the next years.
Increasing femoral offset in total hip replacement (THR) has several benefits including improved hip abductor strength and enhanced range of motion. Biomechanical studies have suggested that this may negatively impact on stem stability. However, it is unclear whether this has a clinical impact. Using data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR), the aim of this study was to determine the impact of stem offset and stem size for the three most common cementless THR prostheses revised for aseptic loosening. The study period was September 1999 to December 2020. The study population included all primary procedures for osteoarthritis with a cementless THR using the Corail, Quadra-H and Polarstem. Procedures were divided into small and large stem sizes and by standard and high stem offset for each stem system. Hazard ratios (HR) from Cox proportional hazards models, adjusting for age and gender, were performed to compare revision for aseptic loosening for offset and stem size for each of the three femoral stems. There were 55,194 Corail stems, 13,642 Quadra-H stem, and 13,736 Polarstem prostheses included in this study. For the Corail stem, offset had an impact only when small stems were used (sizes 8-11). Revision for aseptic loosening was increased for the high offset stem (HR=1.90;95% CI 1.53–2.37;p<0.001). There was also a higher revision risk for aseptic loosening for high offset small size Quadra-H stems (sizes 0-3). Similar to the Corail stem, offset did not impact on the revision risk for larger stems (Corail sizes 12-20, Quadra-H sizes 4-7). The Polarstem did not show any difference in aseptic loosening revision risk when high and standard offset stems were compared, and this was irrespective of stem size. High offset may be associated with increased revision for aseptic loosening, but this is both stem size and prosthesis specific.