Metal allergy in knee arthroplasty patients is a controversial topic. We aimed to conduct a scoping review to clarify the management of metal allergy in primary and revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Studies were identified by searching electronic databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid MEDLINE, and Embase, from their inception to November 2020, for studies evaluating TKA patients with metal hypersensitivity/allergy. All studies reporting on diagnosing or managing metal hypersensitivity in TKA were included. Data were extracted and summarized based on study design, study population, interventions and outcomes. A practical guide is then formulated based on the available evidence.Aims
Methods
We used the National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man (NJR) to investigate the risk of revision due to prosthetic joint infection (PJI) for patients undergoing primary and revision hip arthroplasty, the changes in risk over time, and the overall burden created by PJI. We analysed revision total hip arthroplasties (THAs) performed due to a diagnosis of PJI and the linked index procedures recorded in the NJR between 2003 and 2014. The cohort analysed consisted of 623 253 index primary hip arthroplasties, 63 222 index revision hip arthroplasties and 7585 revision THAs performed due to a diagnosis of PJI. The prevalence, cumulative incidence functions and the burden of PJI (total procedures) were calculated. Overall linear trends were investigated with log-linear regression.Objectives
Methods
Modern metal-on-metal hip resurfacing has been
widely performed in the United Kingdom for over a decade. However,
the literature reports conflicting views of the benefits: excellent
medium- to long-term results with some brands in specific subgroups,
but high failure rates and local soft-tissue reactions in others.
The National Joint Registry for England and Wales (NJR) has collected
data on all hip resurfacings performed since 2003. This retrospective
cohort study recorded survival time to revision from a resurfacing
procedure, exploring risk factors independently associated with
failure. All patients with a primary diagnosis of osteoarthritis
who underwent resurfacing between 2003 and 2010 were included in
the analyses. Cox’s proportional hazard models were used to analyse
the extent to which the risk of revision was related to patient,
surgeon and implant covariates. A total of 27 971 hip resurfacings were performed during the
study period, of which 1003 (3.59%) underwent revision surgery.
In the final adjusted model, we found that women were at greater
risk of revision than men (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.30, p = 0.007),
but the risk of revision was independent of age. Of the implant-specific
predictors, five brands had a significantly greater risk of revision
than the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) (ASR: HR = 2.82, p <
0.001,
Conserve: HR = 2.03, p <
0.001, Cormet: HR = 1.43, p = 0.001,
Durom: HR = 1.67, p <
0.001, Recap: HR = 1.58, p = 0.007). Smaller
femoral head components were also significantly more likely to require
revision (≤ 44 mm: HR = 2.14, p <
0.001, 45 to 47 mm: HR = 1.48,
p = 0.001) than medium or large heads, as were operations performed
by low-volume surgeons (HR = 1.36, p <
0.001). Once these influences
had been removed, in 4873 male patients <
60 years old undergoing
resurfacing with a BHR, the five-year estimated risk of revision
was 1.59%. In summary, after adjustment for a range of covariates we found
that there were significant differences in the rate of failure between
brands and component sizes. Younger male patients had good five-year
implant survival when the BHR was used.
Choice of implant for patients aged sixty-five years or younger requiring hip arthroplasty is a topic of current debate, those in favor of resurfacing maintain it offers a greater range of motion and activity. We examined the Oxford Hip Score's (OHS) and Duke Activity Status Index (DASI) of patients undergoing either total hip replacement (THR) using an Elite Plus Stem, or hip resurfacing using a Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR). The THR cohort comprised 34 implants (4 bilateral), 17 men, 17 women, mean age 56.08 years. The resurfacing cohort comprised 27 implants (3 bilateral), 18 men, 9 women, mean age 50.51 years. The mean difference calculated between pre- and post-operative OHS was 22.08 and 25.33 for the THR and resurfacing cohorts respectively. The mean Duke score was 42.3 and 53 for the cohorts respectively. Using the pre-operative and post-operative change in Oxford Hip Scores, no statistically significant difference was found between the THR and resurfacing cohorts (p = 0.2891). There was a statistically difference found between the THR and resurfacing cohorts with regards to activity using post-operative Duke scores, (p = 0.0047). This study has emphasized the use of the DASI, a pure activity score, in hip research. In terms of reducing pain, both prostheses appear equally effective. With regards to activity, as evidenced by utilizing a pure activity score, the resurfacing cohort faired better. Our study suggests at one year post-op, young patients with a resurfacing have a greater activity level than those with a THR.
These patients continue to be monitored to evaluate long term outcomes with this approach. (301 words)
We present a 25-year-old patient with juvenile rheumatoid arthritis and ankylosis of both hips and both knees treated by staged bilateral hip and knee arthroplasty. She was followed up for 18 months. We discuss the pre-operative planning, surgical details and post-operative rehabilitation.
We performed a three-year radiostereometric analysis (RSA) study of the Elite Plus femoral component on 25 patients undergoing primary total hip replacement. Additional assessments and measurements from standard radiographs were also made. Subsidence of the stem occurred at the cement-stem interface. At 36 months the subsidence of the stem centroid was a mean of 0.30 mm (0.02 to 1.28), and was continuing at a slow rate. At the same time point, internal rotation and posterior migration of the femoral head had ceased. One stem migrated excessively and additional assessments suggested that this was probably due to high patient demand. The failure rate of 4% in our study is consistent with data from arthroplasty registers but contrasts with poor results from another RSA study, and from some clinical studies. We believe that the surgical technique, particularly the use of high-viscosity cement, may have been an important factor contributing to our results.
Heterotopic ossification following joint replacement in the lower limb occurs in 3% to 90% of cases. Higher grades of heterotopic ossification can result in significant limitation of function and can negate the benefits of joint replacement. The understanding of the pathophysiology of this condition has improved in recent years. It would appear to be related to a combination of systemic and local factors, including over-expression of bone morphogenetic protein-4. There is currently little evidence to support the routine use of prophylaxis for heterotopic ossification in arthroplasty patients, but prophylaxis is recommended by some for high-risk patients. Radiotherapy given as one dose of 7 Gy to 8 Gy, either pre-operatively (<
four hours before) or post-operatively (within 72 hours of surgery), appears to be more effective than indometacin therapy (75 mg daily for six weeks). In cases of prophylaxis against recurrent heterotopic ossification following excision, recent work has suggested that a combination of radiotherapy and indometacin is effective. Advances in our understanding of this condition may permit the development of newer, safer treatment modalities.
We carried out a retrospective case-control study in 80 patients who underwent a revision total hip replacement. Group A (40 patients) received tranexamic acid and intra-operative cell salvage. Group B (40 patients) was a matched control group and did not receive this management. Each group was divided into four subgroups: revision of both components, revision of both components with bone grafting, revision of the acetabular component with or without bone graft, and revision of the femoral component with or without bone graft. In group A the total number of units transfused was 52, compared with 139 in group B, representing a reduction in blood usage of 62.5%. The mean amount of blood transfused from cell salvage in each group was 858 ml (113 to 2100), 477 ml (0 to 2680), 228 ml (75 to 315) and 464 ml (120 to 1125), respectively. There was a significant difference in the amount of blood returned between the groups (p <
0.0001). In group A, 22 patients needed transfusion and in group B, 37 (p <
0.0001). A cost analysis calculation showed a total revenue saving of £70 000 and a potential saving throughout our facility of £318 288 per year. Our results show that a significant reduction in blood transfusion can be made using combined cell salvage and tranexamic acid in revision surgery of the hip.
We wanted to know if a mobile bearing Total Knee Arthroplasty was able to cope with rotation of the tibial tray about the femoral prosthesis, by studying the tibio-femoral and patello-femoral joints. This was a kinematic study that used a mobile bearing TKA mounted on a jig that allowed rotation of the tibial tray. The TKA was moved through a 90° range of flexion and we used photography to record the effects at the tibio-femoral and patello-femoral joints. We found that with a fixed tibia, increasing the degree of external rotation increased the degree of medial femoral condyle lift off from the polyethylene insert which was complete at 25° of tibial tray external rotation. The lift off increased with the degree of flexion. The patello-femoral joint remained congruent. If the rotated tibial tray was mounted on a tibia that was allowed to freely rotate, it led to congruity at the tibio-femoral joint. Now we found that there was medial facet impingement and lateral facet lift off of the patella button in extension and flexion. We concluded that this mobile bearing prosthesis did not cope well with rotation of the tibial tray. The relatively low congruency at the tibio-femoral articulation meant that there was a reduced “driving force” at the tibio-femoral joint resulting in less than adequate rotation of the mobile polyethylene insert. We feel that the tibial tray must be placed in neutral to the femoral prosthesis and failure to do so will result in abnormal polyethylene loading that would increase wear and may culminate in early prosthesis revision.
The use of rim mesh to augment acetabular defects at the time of revision hip surgery is a valuable technique. Where acetabular containment is compromised by segmental rim defects, it can be achieved by using a flexible wire mesh fixed to the wall of the ilium by multiple screws. Morsilised bone graft is then impacted onto the acetabular bed and wire mesh thus creating a new hemi-spherical acetabular bed for cementation of a new socket. Standard AP and lateral radiographs are acceptable methods for assessing conventional socket revisions. However if a rim mesh has been used the mesh itself will obscure the socket and both columns of the acetabulum making interpretation difficult. We have modified the Judet views classically used in acetabular fracture surgery to allow better imaging of the socket. The views taken are dependant upon rim mesh position at surgery. Technique: Positioning for posterior acetabular rim mesh From the supine position the patient is rotated 45° so that the side under examination is raised. Radiolucent pads are used to support the pelvis and leg. The hips and knees should not be flexed. Positioning for anterior acetabular rim mesh From the supine position the patient is rotated 45° so the non affected side is raised. Using radiolucent pads the pelvis is supported. The femur should not be flexed and externally rotated as they would be for an oblique hip The film is centred approximately 2cm below the ASIS of the hip being examined. These views of the hip allow complete imaging of the socket and the reconstructive construct. Radiographic evaluation of the bone graft and bone cement-graft interface can be reliably made. We would recommend these views for the radiographic follow up of socket revisions involving the rim mesh technique.
In 1999 a statement of best practice in primary total hip replacement was approved by the Council of the British Orthopaedic Association and by the British Hip Society to provide a basis for regional and national auditable standards. We have compared practice in the North West of England to this document to ascertain adherence to this guide to best practice. 86 surgeons from 26 hospitals were included in the study. A mean of 93.3% of operations were performed in the surgeon’s usual theatre. All of these theatres had vertical laminar air flow systems. 42.2% of respondents routinely used exhaust suits. 68.1% of respondents routinely used impermeable disposable gowns, 26.1% used impermeable reusable gowns. The Charnley femoral and acetabular prostheses were the most commonly used prostheses. All surgeons use some form of anti-thromboembolic prophylaxis. 66.2% use a combination of both mechanical and chemical means. All surgeons used antibiotic prophylaxis. The most popular choice of antibiotic was a cephalosporin. 70.7% used a three-dose regime over 24 hours. 2.6% of surgeons continued antibiotic prophylaxis for 48 hours after surgery. 93.7% of surgeons routinely use antibiotic-loaded cement.All surgeons routinely cleaned, irrigated and dried the acetabulum and femur before cement insertion. Only one surgeon did not use any form of femoral canal occlusion. 69.4% used an intramedullary bone block. Retrograde filling of the femoral shaft by means of a cement gun was practised by 65.1%. This study has demonstrated considerable variation of practice in THA across the North West region and significant divergence from the statement of best practice approved by the BOA and BHS. The introduction of a properly funded national hip register will surely help to clarify the effect of such diverse practice on patient outcome. We would recommend that all trusts locally audit their practices and correlate them to these nationally agreed guidelines.