Highly Crosslinked-remelted versus Less-crosslinked Polyethylene in Posterior Cruciate-retaining TKAs in the Same Patients

Oxidation and Damage Mechanisms of Second-Generation Highly Cross-Linked Polyethylene Tibial Inserts

BACKGROUND

After clinical introduction in 2005, sequentially annealed, highly cross-linked polyethylene (SA HXLPE) was studied for retrievals with short implantation times; however, long-term follow-ups are lacking. The objective of this study was to examine and compare the revision reasons, damage mechanisms, and oxidation indices of SA HXLPE and conventional gamma inert-sterilized (Gamma Inert) ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene tibial inserts implanted for >5 years.

METHODS

There were 74 total knee arthroplasty tibial inserts (46 SA HXLPEs, 28 Gamma Inerts) implanted for >5 years (mean 7 ± 2 years) retrieved as part of a multicenter retrieval program. Cruciate-retaining implants comprised 44% of the SA HXLPEs and 14% of the Gamma Inerts. Patient factors and revision reasons were collected from revision operating notes. A semiquantitative scoring method was used to assess surface damage mechanisms. Oxidation was measured using Fourier transform infrared microscopy according to American Society for Testing and Materials 2102. Differences between cohorts were assessed with Mann-Whitney U-tests.

RESULTS

Loosening (Gamma Inert: 17 of 28, SA HXLPE: 15 of 46) and instability (Gamma Inert: 6 of 28, SA HXLPE: 15 of 46) were the most common revision reasons for both cohorts. The most prevalent surface damage mechanisms were burnishing, pitting, and scratching, with burnishing of the condyles being higher in Gamma Inert components (P = .022). Mean oxidation was higher in the SA HXLPE inserts at the articulating surface (P = .002) and anterior-posterior faces (P = .023). No difference was observed at the backside surface (P = .060).

CONCLUSIONS

Revision reasons and surface damage mechanisms were comparable in the Gamma Inert and SA cohorts. Further studies are needed to continue to assess the in vivo damage and clinical relevance, if any, of oxidation in SA HXLPE over longer implantation times, particularly for implants implanted for more than 10 years.

No Reduction in Revision Risk Associated With Highly Cross-linked Polyethylene With or Without Antioxidants Over Conventional Polyetheylene in TKA: An Analysis From the American Joint Replacement Registry

BACKGROUND

Highly cross-linked polyethylene (HXLPE) can improve wear properties in TKA, but it can also lead to decreased mechanical properties. Antioxidants were added to HXLPE to improve its mechanical properties while retaining the improved wear characteristics. However, it remains unclear whether these modifications to conventional polytheylene used in TKA have resulted in a change in the revision risk.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

We used American Joint Replacement Registry data to ask: (1) Is there a difference in all-cause revision in patients who underwent TKA using HXLPE with or without an antioxidant doping compared with conventional polyethylene? (2) Is there a difference in revision for aseptic failure in patients who underwent TKA using HXLPE with or without an antioxidant doping compared with conventional polyethylene?

METHODS

We analyzed American Joint Replacement Registry data from 2012 to 2019. We identified 339,366 primary TKAs over the study period in patients older than 65 years and linked procedures to supplemental Centers for Medicare & Medicaid data where available. Patient total number of reported comorbidities, gender, age, region, polyethylene characteristics, procedure dates, and indication for revision were recorded. Median follow-up was 34 months. We compared HXLPE with or without antioxidants to conventional polyethylene. Event-free percent survival curves and Cox proportional hazard regression modeling was used for all-cause revision and revision for aseptic failure.

RESULTS

Compared with conventional polyethylene, there was no difference in all-cause revision with HXLPE with an antioxidant (HR 1.06 [95% CI 0.98 to 1.14]; p = 0.13) or HXLPE without an antioxidant (HR 1.04 [95% CI 0.97 to 1.11]; p = 0.28). Compared with conventional polyethylene, there was no difference in revision for aseptic failure with HXLPE with an antioxidant (HR 1.07 [95% CI 0.99 to 1.14]; p = 0.08) or HXLPE without an antioxidant (HR 1.03 [95% CI 0.97 to 1.01]; p = 0.30).

CONCLUSION

We found no difference in revision risk between HXLPE with or without an antioxidant and conventional polyethylene during this time frame. HXLPE polyethylene, with or without an antioxidant, should not be widely adopted until or unless it is shown to be superior to conventional polyethylene in TKA.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic study.

Comparable results between crosslinked polyethylene and conventional ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene implanted in total knee arthroplasty: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials

PURPOSE

Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has experienced exponential growth over the last decade, including increasingly younger patients with high functional demands. Highly crosslinked polyethylene (HXLPE) has been proven effective in reducing osteolysis and loosening revisions while improving long-term survival and performance in total hip arthroplasty; nevertheless, this superiority is not demonstrated in TKA. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to examine whether HXLPE improved overall survival and postoperative functional and radiological outcomes compared to conventional polyethylene (CPE) in TKA.

METHODS

According to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline, a literature search of five databases (PubMed, Medline, Scopus, Science Direct and Embase) was made. A PICOS model was performed. The initial screening identified 2541 studies. Each eligible clinical article was analysed according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine 2011 Levels of Evidence (LoE). Only randomised clinical trials (RCTs) of LoE 1 and 2 were included. The methodological quality of the articles was assessed using the Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) tool.

RESULTS

Six clinical studies were included in the final study. This systematic review and meta-analysis were registered on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO). A total of 2285 knees were included. Eight outcomes (total reoperations, reoperations for prosthesis loosening and infections, radiolucent lines, osteolysis, mechanical failure, postoperative KSS knee score and function score) were analysed. For none of them, a statistically significant difference was found about the superiority of HXLPE over CPE (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

There were no statistically significant differences between HXLPE and CPE for TKA concerning clinical, radiological, and functional outcomes; nevertheless, HXLPE did not show higher failure rates or complications and can be safely used for TKA.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

II.

Highly cross-linked polyethylene (HXLPE) is equivalent to conventional polyethylene (CPE) in total knee arthroplasty: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The benefits of HXLPE in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) have not been as evident as total hip arthroplasty (THA). A systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the impact of highly-crosslinked polyethylene (HXLPE) on TKA outcomes compared to conventional polyethylene (CPE) is described.

METHODS

All studies comparing HXLPE with CPE for primary TKA were included for analysis. The minimum dataset included revision rates, indication for revision, aseptic component loosening and follow-up time. The primary outcome variables were all-cause revision, aseptic revision, revision for loosening, radiographic component loosening, osteolysis and incidence of radiolucent lines. Secondary outcome measures included postoperative functional knee scores. A random-effects meta-analysis allowing for all missing data was performed for all primary outcome variables.

RESULTS

Six studies met the inclusion criteria. In total, there were 2,234 knees (1,105 HXLPE and 1,129 CPE). The combined mean follow-up for all studies was 6 years. The aseptic revision rate in the HXLPE group was 1.02% compared to 1.97% in the CPE group. There was no difference in the rate of all-cause revision (p = 0.131), aseptic revision (p = 0.298) or revision for component loosening (p = 0.206) between the two groups. Radiographic loosening (p = 0.200), radiolucent lines (p = 0.123) and osteolysis (p = 0.604) was similar between both groups. Functional outcomes were similar between groups.

CONCLUSION

The use of HXLPE in TKA yields similar results for clinical and radiographic outcomes when compared to CPE at midterm follow-up. HXLPE does not confer the same advantages to TKA as seen in THA.

Molded, Gamma-radiated, Argon-processed Polyethylene Components of Rotating Hinge Knee Megaprostheses Have a Lower Failure Hazard and Revision Rates Than Air-sterilized, Machined, Ram-extruded Bar Stock Components

BACKGROUND

Megaprostheses are commonly used for reconstruction after distal femoral resection in orthopaedic oncology. The polyethylene bearings in these reconstructions experience wear and wear-related complications that may result in revision surgery. Improved manufacturing and processing of polyethylene has increased the durability of components commonly used for routine arthroplasty. Alterations in the manufacture of polyethylene is expected to reduce the revision risk of oncologic megaprostheses, resulting in fewer revision procedures, but this has not been proven.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

Is there a difference in the hazard of polyethylene wear or breakage leading to prosthetic revision between differences in polyethylene manufacture and processing based on a competing risk analysis?

METHODS

This was a single-center, observational, retrospective comparative study of 224 patients who had distal femur megaprostheses with identical rotating hinge articulations and knee kinematics after oncologic surgery from 1993 to 2015. No differences in surgical indications, joint articular components and kinematics, age, sex, diagnosis, BMI, use of chemotherapy, or tumor stage were seen with the patient numbers available. Prosthetic survivorship free from prosthetic revision surgery because of polyethylene wear-related revisions, defined as breakage, increased excursion on varus-valgus stress, or new locking or giving way was compared between two groups of patients: group 1 polyethylene (P1) (66 patients) who had air-sterilized machined ram-extruded bar stock or group 2 polyethylene (P2) (158 patients) molded gamma-radiated argon-processed polyethylene components. The mean follow-up duration for the P1 group (89 ± 55 months) was not different from that of patients with P2 polyethylene (79 ± 63 months; p = 0.24) including 27% (18 of 66) of patients in the P1 group and 25% (40 of 158) of patients in the P2 group followed for more than 10 years. More patients in the P2 group were lost to follow-up (9.2%, 16 of 174) than in the P1 group (5.7%, 4 of 70) but this was not statistically different (chi square; p = 0.37). The hazard of revision because of polyethylene wear or breakage was calculated with a competing risk analysis using the Fine-Gray subdistribution hazard model.

RESULTS

The P1 implants had a higher hazard ratio for revision caused by polyethylene damage at 120 months than did the P2 polyethylene implants (P1 HR 0.24 [95% CI 0.13 to 0.36] versus HR 0.07 [95% CI 0.03 to 0.12]), which represents an estimated absolute risk reduction of 17% (95% CI 6.15 to 27.9).

CONCLUSION

Polyethylene damage can result in megaprosthetic revisions in patients undergoing oncologic procedures. The hazard of polyethylene failure resulting in revision surgery was lower in patients who received recent polyethylene than in patients with polyethylene produced by previous methods, enhancing the durability of distal femoral megaprosthetic reconstructions. Despite improvements in polyethylene manufacture and clinical results, revision solely because of polyethylene damage still occurs in 7% of patients by the 10-year timepoint; thus, more improvement is needed. Patients who receive these implants should be monitored for signs and symptoms of polyethylene damage.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic study.

Long-Term Assessment of Highly Cross-Linked and Compression-Molded Polyethylene Inserts for Posterior Cruciate-Substituting TKA in Young Patients: A Concise Follow-up of a Previous Report

The purpose of the present study was to determine the long-term clinical and radiographic results, survival rate, prevalence of osteolysis, and prevalence of fracture of the tibial polyethylene insert following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Three hundred patients (600 knees) were included in this follow-up study. The mean age of the patients (and standard deviation) was 60.3 ± 4.3 years, and the mean duration of follow-up was 13.2 years (range, 12 to 14 years). Revision of the TKA prosthesis was performed in 7 knees (2.3%) with a compression-molded polyethylene (CPE) tibial insert and 6 knees (2%) with a highly cross-linked polyethylene (HXLPE) tibial insert. The rate of survival at 14 years was 97.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 94%-100%) in the CPE group and 98% (95% CI, 94%-100%) in the HXLPE group with reoperation for any reason as the end point. The rate of survival at 14 years was 98% (95% CI, 94%-100%) in both groups with reoperation for mechanical failure as the end point. No knee had osteolysis or fracture of the tibial polyethylene insert. There were no between-group differences. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:: Therapeutic Level I. See Instruction for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Polyethylene in total knee arthroplasty: Where are we now?

Polyethylene (PE) remains the gold standard for the articulating surface in hip and knee arthroplasty. To increase arthroplasty longevity and improve wear resistance, newer versions of PE have been designed with resultantly different wear properties. Highly cross-linked polyethylene (HXLPE) is used in total hip arthroplasty with excellent outcomes; however, its use in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) remains conflicting. This review summarizes biomechanical and wear properties, clinical outcomes, and cost of polyethylene inserts in TKA. Simulation studies have convincingly shown decreased wear and oxidation rates with HXLPE when compared to conventional polyethylene (CPE). Registry results have been conflicting, and short- to midterm clinical studies have not demonstrated a significant difference between HXLPE and CPE. The cost of HXLPE inserts is higher than CPE. Long-term clinical data are lacking and further studies are warranted to evaluate the role of HXLPE in TKA.

Larger range of motion and increased return to activity, but higher revision rates following unicompartmental versus total knee arthroplasty in patients under 65: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Due to the lack of comparative studies, a systematic review was conducted to determine revision rates of unicompartmental and total knee arthroplasty (UKA and TKA), and compare functional outcomes, range of motion and activity scores in patients less than 65 years of age.

METHODS

A literature search was performed using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane systems since 2000. 27 UKA and 33 TKA studies were identified and included. Annual revision rate (ARR), functional outcomes, and return to activity were assessed for both types of arthroplasty using independent t tests.

RESULTS

Four level I studies, 12 level II, 16 level III, and 29 level IV were included, which reported on outcomes in 2224 UKAs and 4737 TKAs. UKA studies reported 183 revisions, yielding an ARR of 1.00 and extrapolated 10-year survivorship of 90.0%. TKA studies reported 324 TKA revisions, resulting in an ARR of 0.53 and extrapolated 10-year survivorship of 94.7%. Functional outcomes scores following UKA and TKA were equivalent, however, following UKA larger ROM (125° versus 114°, p = 0.004) and higher UCLA scores were observed compared to TKA (6.9 versus 6.0, n.s.).

CONCLUSION

These results show that good-to-excellent outcomes can be achieved following UKA and TKA in patients less than 65 years of age. A higher ARR was noted following UKA compared to TKA. However, improved functional outcomes, ROM and return to activity were found after UKA than TKA in this young population. Comparative studies are needed to confirm these findings and assess factors contributing to failure at the younger patient population. Outcomes of UKA and TKA in patients younger than 65 years are both satisfying, and therefore, both procedures are not contraindicated at younger age. UKA has several important advantages over TKA in this young and frequently more active population.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

The Effect of Alternative Bearing Surfaces on the Risk of Revision Due to Infection in Minimally Stabilized Total Knee Replacement: An Analysis of 326,603 Prostheses from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry

BACKGROUND

The effect of alternative bearing materials on the risk of revision due to infection after total knee replacement remains uncertain. By reducing the immunomodulating polyethylene wear-particle burden and with different substrate bacterial adhesion properties, Oxinium oxidized zirconium and cross-linked polyethylene (XLPE) could alter infection risk. The purpose of the current study was to analyze the risk of revision for infection in 3 comparisons of bearing combinations.

METHODS

To evaluate the risk of revision for infection with XLPE, cobalt-chromium (CoCr) on XLPE was compared with CoCr on non-cross-linked polyethylene (NXLPE). To evaluate Oxinium, Oxinium-NXLPE was compared with CoCr-NXLPE, and to evaluate the possibility of an additional beneficial effect of Oxinium on XLPE, Oxinium-XLPE was compared with CoCr-XLPE. The cumulative percent revision (CPR) and hazard ratio (HR) for revision for infection in primary total knee replacement for osteoarthritis were determined from registry data from September 1, 1999, to December 31, 2015. Revisions within 6 months following the primary surgery were censored from the analysis, while procedures with posterior stabilized or fully stabilized total knee replacements as well as prostheses with a known higher risk of revision were excluded. Analyses were stratified by age, sex, and fixation type.

RESULTS

Of the 326,603 included primary total knee replacements, 1,511 (0.46%) were revised for infection. The risk of revision for infection was lower for CoCr-XLPE compared with CoCr-NXLPE (HR = 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.65 to 0.84; p < 0.001). This effect was apparent for both male and female patients overall, all fixation types, antibiotic cement use, those <65 years of age, and male patients ≥65 years of age. However, for female patients ≥65 years of age, there was no difference. Overall, Oxinium-NXLPE had the same revision risk as CoCr-NXLPE regardless of fixation; however, for cemented fixation, subanalysis showed a lower risk for Oxinium-NXLPE compared with CoCr-NXLPE (HR = 0.69; 95% CI = 0.51 to 0.94; p = 0.018). Oxinium-XLPE had the same revision risk for infection as CoCr-XLPE overall, among male patients, and when cemented fixation had been used.

CONCLUSIONS

In this registry analysis, CoCr-XLPE had a 26% lower risk of revision for infection than CoCr-NXLPE, suggesting a reduction of wear particle-induced immunomodulation with XLPE. Oxinium-XLPE had the same risk as CoCr-XLPE. Overall, Oxinium did not reduce the infection risk.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Comparison of long-term clinical outcomes after bilateral mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasties using PCL-retaining and PCL-substituting implants in the same patients

PURPOSE

Whether the posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) should be retained or substituted in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) remains an issue of concern. The purpose of this study was to perform within-patient comparisons of mid- and long-term clinical outcomes after mobile-bearing TKA using PCL-retaining (PCLR) and PCL-substituting (PCLS) implant designs.

METHODS

Clinical outcomes were assessed in thirty-eight patients (76 knees) who underwent bilateral scheduled staged TKA with a PCLR design on one side and a PCLS design on the other. Median follow-up periods were 118 months (range 60-211) and 114 months (62-198) in knees with PCLR and PCLS implants, respectively. The preoperative diagnosis for all patients was osteoarthritis. The postoperative clinical results of mobile-bearing TKAs using PCLR and PCLS implant designs were evaluated.

RESULTS

The postoperative Hospital for Special Surgery and the new Knee Society Knee Scoring System scores revealed no differences between PCLR and PCLS implant designs. Postoperative flexion and extension also did not differ between designs. Postoperative median femorotibial alignment was 4° for PCLR and 5° for PCLS implants, respectively; this difference was not significant. Six of the knees with PCLR and three of the knees with PCLS implants had radiolucent lines around the tibial prostheses; these were less than 1 mm and nonprogressive.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinically good results were obtained at approximately 10 years after mobile-bearing TKA using both PCLR and PCLS implant designs bilaterally in the same patients. These results provide conclusive evidence that equivalent clinical results can be obtained with either implant design.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic study, Level II.