The December 2015 Knee Roundup360 looks at: Albumin and complications in knee arthroplasty; Tantalum: a knee fixation for all seasons?; Dynamic knee alignment; Tibial component design in UKA; Managing the tidal wave of revision knee arthroplasty; Scoring pain in TKR; Does anyone have a ‘normal’ tibial slope?; XLPE in TKR? A five-year clinical study; Spacers and infected revision arthroplasties; Dialysis and arthroplasty

Aims

The primary aim of this independent prospective randomised trial was to compare serum metal ion levels for ceramic-on-metal (CoM) and metal-on-metal (MoM) bearing surfaces in total hip arthroplasty (THA). Our one-year results demonstrated elevation in metal ion levels above baseline with no significant difference between the CoM and MoM groups. This paper reviews the five-year data.

Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a cost effective and extremely successful operation. As longevity increases, the demand for primary TKA will continue to rise. The success and survivorship of TKAs are dependent on the demographics of the patient, surgical technique and implant-related factors.

Currently the risk of failure of a TKA requiring revision surgery ten years post-operatively is 5%.

The most common indications for revision include aseptic loosening (29.8%), infection (14.8%), and pain (9.5%). Revision surgery poses considerable clinical burdens on patients and financial burdens on healthcare systems.

We present a current concepts review on the epidemiology of failed TKAs using data from worldwide National Joint Registries.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B(1 Suppl A):105–12.

Objectives

Studies which consider the molecular mechanisms of degeneration and regeneration of cartilaginous tissues are seriously hampered by problematic ribonucleic acid (RNA) isolations due to low cell density and the dense, proteoglycan-rich extracellular matrix of cartilage. Proteoglycans tend to co-purify with RNA, they can absorb the full spectrum of UV light and they are potent inhibitors of polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Therefore, the objective of the present study is to compare and optimise different homogenisation methods and RNA isolation kits for an array of cartilaginous tissues.

Non-traumatic osteonecrosis of the femoral head is a potentially devastating condition, the prevalence of which is increasing. Many joint-preserving forms of treatment, both medical and surgical, have been developed in an attempt to slow or reverse its progression, as it usually affects young patients.

However, it is important to evaluate the best evidence that is available for the many forms of treatment considering the variation in the demographics of the patients, the methodology and the outcomes in the studies that have been published, so that it can be used effectively.

The purpose of this review, therefore, was to provide an up-to-date, evidence-based guide to the management, both non-operative and operative, of non-traumatic osteonecrosis of the femoral head.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:1267–79.

Objectives

Bisphosphonates are widely used as first-line treatment for primary and secondary prevention of fragility fractures. Whilst they have proved effective in this role, there is growing concern over their long-term use, with much evidence linking bisphosphonate-related suppression of bone remodelling to an increased risk of atypical subtrochanteric fractures of the femur (AFFs). The objective of this article is to review this evidence, while presenting the current available strategies for the management of AFFs.

Large femoral heads have been used with increasing frequency over the last decade. The prime reason is likely the effect of large heads on stability. The larger head neck ratio, combined with the increased jump distance of larger heads result in a greater arc of impingement free motion, and greater resistance to dislocation in a provocative position. Multiple studies have demonstrated clear clinical efficacy in diminishing dislocation rates with the use of large femoral heads. With crosslinked polyethylene, wear has been shown to be equivalent between larger and smaller heads. However, the stability advantages of increasing diameter beyond 38 mm have not been clearly demonstrated. More importantly, recent data implicates large heads in the increasing prevalence of groin pain and psoas impingement. There are clear benefits with larger femoral head diameters, but the advantages of diameters beyond 38 mm have not yet been demonstrated clinically.

The popularity of cementless total hip replacement (THR) has surpassed cemented THR in England and Wales. This retrospective cohort study records survival time to revision following primary cementless THR with the most common combination (accounting for almost a third of all cementless THRs), and explores risk factors independently associated with failure, using data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. Patients with osteoarthritis who had a DePuy Corail/Pinnacle THR implanted between the establishment of the registry in 2003 and 31 December 2010 were included within analyses. There were 35 386 procedures. Cox proportional hazard models were used to analyse the extent to which the risk of revision was related to patient, surgeon and implant covariates. The overall rate of revision at five years was 2.4% (99% confidence interval 2.02 to 2.79). In the final adjusted model, we found that the risk of revision was significantly higher in patients receiving metal-on-metal (MoM: hazard ratio (HR) 1.93, p < 0.001) and ceramic-on-ceramic bearings (CoC: HR 1.55, p = 0.003) compared with the best performing bearing (metal-on-polyethylene). The risk of revision was also greater for smaller femoral stems (sizes 8 to 10: HR 1.82, p < 0.001) compared with mid-range sizes. In a secondary analysis of only patients where body mass index (BMI) data were available (n = 17 166), BMI ≥ 30 kg/m² significantly increased the risk of revision (HR 1.55, p = 0.002). The influence of the bearing on the risk of revision remained significant (MoM: HR 2.19, p < 0.001; CoC: HR 2.09, p = 0.001). The risk of revision was independent of age, gender, head size and offset, shell, liner and stem type, and surgeon characteristics.

We found significant differences in failure between bearing surfaces and femoral stem size after adjustment for a range of covariates in a large cohort of single-brand cementless THRs. In this study of procedures performed since 2003, hard bearings had significantly higher rates of revision, but we found no evidence that head size had an effect. Patient characteristics, such as BMI and American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, also influence the survival of cementless components.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:747–57.

Dislocation remains among the most common complications of, and reasons for, revision of both primary and revision total hip replacements (THR). Hence, there is great interest in maximising stability to prevent this complication. Head size has been recognised to have a strong influence on the risk of dislocation post-operatively. As femoral head size increases, stability is augmented, secondary to an increase in impingement-free range of movement. Larger head sizes also greatly increase the ‘jump distance’ required for the head to dislocate in an appropriately positioned cup. Level-one studies support the use of larger diameter heads as they decrease the risk of dislocation following primary and revision THR. Highly cross-linked polyethylene has allowed us to increase femoral head size, without a marked increase in wear. However, the thin polyethylene liners necessary to accommodate larger heads may increase the risk of liner fracture and larger heads have also been implicated in causing soft-tissue impingement resulting in groin pain. Larger diameter heads also impart larger forces on the femoral trunnion, which may contribute to corrosion, metal release, and adverse local tissue reactions. Alternative large bearings including large ceramic heads and dual mobility bearings may mitigate some of these risks, and several of these devices have been used with clinical success.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B(11 Suppl A):23–6.

Surgical interventions consisting of internal fixation (IF) or total hip replacement (THR) are required to restore patient mobility after hip fractures. Conventionally, this decision was based solely upon the degree of fracture displacement. However, in the last ten years, there has been a move to incorporate patient characteristics into the decision making process. Research demonstrating that joint replacement renders superior functional results when compared with IF, in the treatment of displaced femoral neck fractures, has swayed the pendulum in favour of THR. However, a high risk of dislocation has always been the concern. Fortunately, there are newer technologies and alternative surgical approaches that can help reduce the risk of dislocation. The authors propose an algorithm for the treatment of femoral neck fractures: if minimally displaced, in the absence of hip joint arthritis, IF should be performed; if arthritis is present, or the fracture is displaced, then THR is preferred.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B(11 Suppl A):43–7.

The use of large-diameter metal-on-metal (MoM) components in total hip arthroplasty (THA) is associated with an increased risk of early failure due to adverse local tissue reaction to metal debris (ARMD) in response to the release of metal ions from the bearing couple and/or head-neck taper corrosion. The aim of this paper was to present a review of the incidence and natural history of ARMD and the forms of treatment, with a focus on the need for and extent of resection or debulking of the pseudotumour. An illustrative case report is presented of a patient with an intra-pelvic pseudotumour associated with a large diameter MoM THA, which was treated successfully with revision of the bearing surface to a dual mobility couple and retention of the well-fixed acetabular and femoral components. The pseudotumour was left in situ. Resolution of the intra-pelvic mass and normalisation of metal ion levels was observed seven months post-operatively.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:736–40.

This review examines the future of total hip arthroplasty, aiming to avoid past mistakes

The ‘jumbo’ acetabular component is now commonly used in acetabular revision surgery where there is extensive bone loss. It offers high surface contact, permits weight bearing over a large area of the pelvis, the need for bone grafting is reduced and it is usually possible to restore centre of rotation of the hip. Disadvantages of its use include a technique in which bone structure may not be restored, a risk of excessive posterior bone loss during reaming, an obligation to employ screw fixation, limited bone ingrowth with late failure and high hip centre, leading to increased risk of dislocation. Contraindications include unaddressed pelvic dissociation, inability to implant the component with a rim fit, and an inability to achieve screw fixation. Use in acetabulae with < 50% bone stock has also been questioned. Published results have been encouraging in the first decade, with late failures predominantly because of polyethylene wear and aseptic loosening. Dislocation is the most common complication of jumbo acetabular revisions, with an incidence of approximately 10%, and often mandates revision. Based on published results, a hemispherical component with an enhanced porous coating, highly cross-linked polyethylene, and a large femoral head appears to represent the optimum tribology for jumbo acetabular revisions.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B(1 Suppl A):64–7.