Up to 20% of patients can remain dissatisfied following TKR. A proportion of TKRs will need early revision with aseptic loosening the most common. The ATTUNE TKR was introduced in 2011 as successor to its predicate design The PFC Sigma (DePuy Synthes, Warsaw, In). However, following reports of early failures of the tibial component there have been ongoing concerns of increased loosening rates with the ATTUNE TKR. In 2017 a redesigned tibial baseplate (S+) was introduced, which included cement pockets and an increased surface roughness to improve cement bonding. Given the concerns of early tibial loosening with the ATTUNE knee system, this study aimed to compare revision rates and those specific to aseptic loosening of the ATTUNE implant in comparison to an established predicate as well as other implant designs used in a high-volume arthroplasty centre. The Attune TKR was introduced to our unit in December 2011. Prior to this we routinely used a predicate design with an excellent long-term track record (PFC Sigma) which remains in use. In addition, other designs were available and used as per surgeon preference. Using a prospectively maintained database, we identified 10,202 patients who underwent primary cemented TKR at our institution between 01/04/2003–31/03/2022 with a minimum of 1 year follow-up (Mean 8.4years, range 1–20years): 1) 2406 with ATTUNE TKR (of which 557 were S+) 2) 4652 with PFC TKR 3) 3154 with other cemented designs. All implants were cemented using high viscosity cement. The primary outcome measures were all-cause revision, revision for aseptic loosening, and revision for tibial loosening. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and Cox regression models were used to compare the primary outcomes between groups. Matched cohorts were selected from the ATTUNE subsets (original and S+) and PFC groups using the nearest neighbor method for radiographic analysis. Radiographs were assessed to compare the presence of radiolucent lines in the Attune S+, standard Attune, and PFC implants.Abstract
Objective
Methods
Total hip replacement (THR) is one of the most successful and cost-effective interventions in orthopaedic surgery. Dislocation is a debilitating complication of THR and managing an unstable THR constitutes a significant clinical challenge. Stability in THR is multifactorial and is influenced by surgical, patient and implant related factors. It is established that larger diameter femoral heads have a wider impingement-free range of movement and an increase in jump distance, both of which are relevant in reducing the risk of dislocation. However, they can generate higher frictional torque which has led to concerns related to increased wear and loosening. Furthermore, the potential for taper corrosion or trunnionosis is also a potential concern with larger femoral heads, particularly those made from cobalt-chrome. These concerns have meant there is hesitancy among surgeons to use larger sized heads. This study presents the comparison of clinical outcomes for different head sizes (28mm, 32mm and 36mm) in primary THR for 10,104 hips in a single centre. A retrospective study of all consecutive patients who underwent primary THR at our institution between 1st April 2003 and 31st Dec 2019 was undertaken. Institutional approval for this study was obtained. Demographic and surgical data were collected. The primary outcome measures were all-cause revision, revision for dislocation, and all-cause revision excluding dislocation. Continuous descriptive statistics used means, median values, ranges, and 95% confidence intervals where appropriate. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were used to estimate time to revision. Cox proportional hazard regression analysis was used to compare revision rates between the femoral head size groups. Adjustments were made for age at surgery, gender, primary diagnosis, ASA score, articulation type, and fixation method.Abstract
Objectives
Methods
