Cemented conical stems can be removed more easily than cylindrical stems, regardless of cone angle in revision knee arthroplasty

Aseptic midterm survival rates between different cemented tibial stem designs in hinged total knee arthroplasty: a 6-year evaluation from the German Arthroplasty Registry

INTRODUCTION

The rate of revision TKA and thus the use of hinged implants (HI) steadily rises. Aseptic loosening lies on the top of the failure patterns. However, no evidence exists until now based on national scale high-caseloads that analyzes the impact of cemented HI stem-design on aseptic survival rates.

METHODS

Data on aseptic HI-revisions with full-cemented tibia-stems were conducted from the German Arthroplasty Registry. Cases were divided in primary HI (PHI) and HI used in revision operations (RHI). Endpoint was a new revision following either a PHI or an RHI. The impact of stem conicity (conical vs. cylindrical), diameter (≤ 13 mm vs. > 13 mm), length (≤ 90 mm vs. > 90 mm) and offset on the 6-Year-Cumulative-Aseptic-Revision-Rate (6Y-CARR) was estimated via Kaplan-Meier curve and compared between groups via Log-Rank-Tests.

RESULTS

3953 PHI and 2032 RHI fulfilled inclusion-criteria. Stem conicity had no impact on 6Y-CARR (p = 0.08 and p = 0.8). Diameter > 13 mm hat an impact on PHI (p = 0.05) with lower 6Y-CARR but not on RHI (p = 0.2). Length > 90 mm showed significantly worst 6Y-CARR in PHI (p = 0.0001) but not in RHI (p = 0.3). Offset-stems showed significantly better 6Y-CARR in PHI (p = 0.04), but not in RHI (p = 0.7).

CONCLUSION

There was no significant impact of the cemented tibia-stem conicity on 6Y-CARR, neither in PHI nor in RHI. The effect of length, diameter and offset on the 6Y-CARR observed in the PHI, was not detectable in the more complex RHI-cases reflecting its limited clinical relevance by itself in more multifactorial backgrounds. Therefore, results must be interpreted with caution due to considerable system-effects and different utilization-scenarios.

Does stem profile have an impact on the failure patterns in revision total knee arthroplasty?

INTRODUCTION

Revision total knee arthroplasty (RTKA) has been increasing continuously. The results of RTKA still remain unsatisfactory. Failure patterns and risk factors in RTKA were thoroughly analyzed, with periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) and aseptic loosening remaining at the forefront of re-revision (ReRTKA) causes. While there is evidence that stem profile impacts the revisability of cemented implants, its association with the modes of RTKA failure is unknown.

METHODS

50 consecutive ReRTKA performed in a single orthopedic center during 2016-2017 were retrospectively analyzed. The cases were stratified according to age, sex, number of preexisting revisions, fixation technique, stem design and causes of re-revision. All explanted implants with conical vs. cylindrical stem profiles were compared.

RESULTS

Mean age was 67 ± 11.5, and 54% were females. 72% of the cases had ≥ 3 previous revisions. 88% were full-cemented, 3% hybrid and 9% press-fit stems. 36% of the RTKA had conical, 58% cylindrical and 6% combined stem profiles. 92% of the RTKA components were removed. Removal causes were: PJI (52.2%), aseptic loosening (34.8%), implant malposition (9.8%), painful knee (1.1%) and instability (2.2%). While the overall RTKA failure patterns were equally distributed between conical and cylindrical stems, subgroup analysis of only cemented ReRTKA revealed a higher incidence of aseptic loosening within cylindrical stem profiles (46.7% vs. 25.7%, P = 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Stem profile may have an impact on the process of aseptic loosening in cemented non-metaphyseal engaging RTKA, with cylindrical designs tending to worse outcomes than conical designs. Large cohort studies could provide more clarity on current observation.

Impact of stem profile on the revisability and the need for osteotomy in well-fixed cemented revision total knee arthroplasty implants

INTRODUCTION

While re-revision total knee arthroplasty (ReRTKA) steadily increases, the ease and bone-sparing removal of RTKA implants is gaining more and more in importance. Biomechanical data suggest that cemented conical stems can be removed significantly easier than cylindrical stems. However, no clinical evidence exists supporting this observation. Aim of this study was to compare the revisability and need for osteotomy (OT) between removals of well-fixed cemented conical vs. cylindrical RTKA stems.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

55 removals of well-fixed full-cemented RTKA stems (29 knees) performed between 2016 and 2018 were retrospectively analyzed. Main outcome variables were: bone loss, fractures, osteotomy incidence, surgery duration, early postoperative complications (EPC), hemoglobin drop and blood transfusion. SPSS was used for the statistical analysis.

RESULTS

44.8% were conical, 48.3% cylindrical, and 6.9% combined stem designs. Causes for re-revision were PJI (75.9%), malposition (17.2%) and persistent pain (6.9%). 10 stem removals (18.2%) required an OT (four femoral, six tibial): eight stems (14.5%) had cylindrical and two (3.6%) conical designs (P = 0.041). Fractures were noted solely in removals without OT (11.1% vs. 0%,). There was a tendency to more bone loss in cylindrical stem revisions (53.8% vs. 32%, P = 0.24). A longer overall surgery time was observed in revisions of cylindrical stems (+ 37 min, P = 0.05). There was higher hemoglobin drop and need for blood transfusion in revisions of cylindrical stems or after OT but without reaching statistical significance. The EPC rates were slightly higher in ReRTKA on cylindrical stems (P = 0.28).

CONCLUSION

Well-fixed cemented conical stems may be revision friendlier with less demands on OT and shorter overall surgery time than cemented cylindrical stems.

Sagittal profile has a significant impact on the explantability of well-fixed cemented stems in revision knee arthroplasty: a biomechanical comparison study of five established knee implant models

BACKGROUND

Easy revisability is gaining increasingly in importance. The removal of well-fixed cemented stems is very demanding and is often associated with increased operative morbidity. Implant design may be here a decisive impact factor, and the best way to ascertain it is experimentally. Aim of this study is to assess different cemented stems of established knee revision implants in regard to their removal capability.

METHODS

Based on their sagittal profile, five stem extensions from known manufacturers were divided in conical, conical-cylindrical and cylindrical designs. The pedicles were also characterized in respect to their cross section, diameter and surface roughness. The cemented stems were dismounted six times each in a reproducible biomechanical setup. The explantation energy required was determined and statistical analyzed.

RESULTS

The conical shaft needed significantly the slightest explantation energy with 19.2 joules (p = 0.004). There was a strong negative linear correlation between conicity proportion and explantation energy of the cemented stems (R² = 0.983). The removal of the three purely cylindrical shafts-regardless of their differences in diameter, cross-sectional design and surface- was the most demanding (98.3, 105, and 116.7 joules) with only secondary differences between them.

CONCLUSION

The longitudinal stem profile may have a primary impact on the explantability of well-fixed cemented shafts with conical designs showing superiority. Cross-sectional profile and surface roughness had here a less decisive influence on the explantability. Surgeons can choose proper implants and removal techniques depending on potential implant-associated revision risks and re-revisions to be expected.