Stepwise introduction of a bone-conserving osseointegrated hip arthroplasty using RSA and a randomized study: II. Clinical proof of concept--40 patients followed for 2 years

A comparison of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) between short and conventional stem hip replacements: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Short stem hip replacements may allow preservation of proximal bone stock and minimise soft tissue disruption, easing future revision surgery. However patient satisfaction with these implants must be determined before widespread use. We aimed to compare patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) between short and conventional stem hip replacements.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines for studies comparing short and conventional stem hip replacements with validated PROMs. Meta-analyses were performed for studies reporting Harris Hip and WOMAC scores. Study bias was assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.

RESULTS

24 studies, incorporating 2593 total hip replacements were included for qualitative analysis. 17 studies were included in the meta-analyses. Of the 7 excluded, 1 study reported the Japanese Orthopaedic Association score and 2 others reported the Oxford Hip score. All three showed no difference between the stems. A meta-analysis of 17 studies reporting Harris hip scores showed no statistically significant difference between short and conventional stems (standard mean difference (SMD) -0.06, 95% CI -0.20-0.07, p = 0.35). 6 studies reported WOMAC scores with higher scores indicating worse outcome. No difference was seen between the two groups (SMD 0.21, 95%CI, -0.01-0.42, p = 0.06). 4 studies reported higher WOMAC scores as better. Once again, a meta-analysis showed no statistically significant difference between the stems (SMD 0.28, 95% CI -0.07-0.63, p = 0.12).

CONCLUSIONS

Our systematic review showed no difference in PROMs between short and conventional stem total hip replacements. This is in keeping with previous evidence but is a more comprehensive analysis. Short stems may have an important role in younger individuals as they allow preservation of proximal femoral bone, minimal access surgery and are amenable to abnormal anatomy. The current literature is hindered by non-uniform methodologies and outcome assessments across studies. Further, standardised, high quality evidence is required before widespread changes in practice.

On inflammation-immunological balance theory-A critical apprehension of disease concepts around implants: Mucositis and marginal bone loss may represent normal conditions and not necessarily a state of disease

BACKGROUND

Oral implants have displayed clinical survival results at the 95%-99% level for over 10 years of follow up. Nevertheless, some clinical researchers see implant disease as a most common phenomenon. Oral implants are regarded to display disease in the form of mucositis or peri-implantitis. One purpose of the present article is to investigate whether a state of disease is necessarily occurring when implants display soft tissue inflammation or partially lose their bony attachment. Another purpose of this article is to analyze the mode of defense for implants that are placed in a bacteria rich environment and to analyze when an obtained steady state between tissue and the foreign materials is disturbed.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The present article is authored as a narrative review contribution.

RESULTS

Evidence is presented that further documents the fact that implants are but foreign bodies that elicit a foreign body response when placed in bone tissue. The foreign body response is characterized by a bony demarcation of implants in combination with a chronic inflammation in soft tissues. Oral implants survive in the bacteria-rich environments where they are placed due to a dual defense system in form of chronic inflammation coupled to immunological cellular actions. Clear evidence is presented that questions the automatic diagnostics of an oral implant disease based on the finding of so called mucositis that in many instances represents but a normal tissue response to foreign body implants instead of disease. Furthermore, neither is marginal bone loss around implants necessarily indicative of a disease; the challenge to the implant represented by bone resorption may be successfully counteracted by local defense mechanisms and a new tissue-implant steady state may evolve. Similar reactions including chronic inflammation occur in the interface of orthopedic implants that display similarly good long-term results as do oral implants, if mainly evaluated based on revision surgery in orthopedic cases. The most common mode of failure of orthopedic implants is aseptic loosening which has been found coupled to a reactivation of the inflammatory- immune system.

CONCLUSIONS

Implants survive in the body due to balanced defense reactions in form of chronic inflammation and activation of the innate immune system. Ten year results of oral and hip /knee implants are hence in the 90+ percentage region. Clinical problems may occur with bone resorption that in most cases is successfully counterbalanced by the defense/healing systems. However, in certain instances implant failure will ensue characterized by bacterial attacks and/or by reactivation of the immune system that now will act to remove the foreign bodies from the tissues.

Total hip replacement and surface replacement for the treatment of pain and disability resulting from end-stage arthritis of the hip (review of technology appraisal guidance 2 and 44): systematic review and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

Total hip replacement (THR) involves the replacement of a damaged hip joint with an artificial hip prosthesis. Resurfacing arthroplasty (RS) involves replacement of the joint surface of the femoral head with a metal surface covering.

OBJECTIVES

To undertake clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness analysis of different types of THR and RS for the treatment of pain and disability in people with end-stage arthritis of the hip, in particular to compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of (1) different types of primary THR and RS for people in whom both procedures are suitable and (2) different types of primary THR for people who are not suitable for hip RS.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, Current Controlled Trials and UK Clinical Research Network (UKCRN) Portfolio Database were searched in December 2012, with searches limited to publications from 2008 and sample sizes of ≥ 100 participants. Reference lists and websites of manufacturers and professional organisations were also screened.

REVIEW METHODS

Systematic reviews of the literature were undertaken to appraise the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different types of THR and RS for people with end-stage arthritis of the hip. Included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews were data extracted and risk of bias and methodological quality were independently assessed by two reviewers using the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool and the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool. A Markov multistate model was developed for the economic evaluation of the technologies. Sensitivity analyses stratified by sex and controlled for age were carried out to assess the robustness of the results.

RESULTS

A total of 2469 records were screened of which 37 were included, representing 16 RCTs and eight systematic reviews. The mean post-THR Harris Hip Score measured at different follow-up times (from 6 months to 10 years) did not differ between THR groups, including between cross-linked polyethylene and traditional polyethylene cup liners (pooled mean difference 2.29, 95% confidence interval -0.88 to 5.45). Five systematic reviews reported evidence on different types of THR (cemented vs. cementless cup fixation and implant articulation materials) but these reviews were inconclusive. Eleven cost-effectiveness studies were included; four provided relevant cost and utility data for the model. Thirty registry studies were included, with no studies reporting better implant survival for RS than for all types of THR. For all analyses, mean costs for RS were higher than those for THR and mean quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were lower. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for RS was dominated by THR, that is, THR was cheaper and more effective than RS (for a lifetime horizon in the base-case analysis, the incremental cost of RS was £11,284 and the incremental QALYs were -0.0879). For all age and sex groups RS remained clearly dominated by THR. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves showed that, for all patients, THR was almost 100% cost-effective at any willingness-to-pay level. There were age and sex differences in the populations with different types of THR and variations in revision rates (from 1.6% to 3.5% at 9 years). For the base-case analysis, for all age and sex groups and a lifetime horizon, mean costs for category E (cemented components with a polyethylene-on-ceramic articulation) were slightly lower and mean QALYs for category E were slightly higher than those for all other THR categories in both deterministic and probabilistic analyses. Hence, category E dominated the other four categories. Sensitivity analysis using an age- and sex-adjusted log-normal model demonstrated that, over a lifetime horizon and at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per QALY, categories A and E were equally likely (50%) to be cost-effective.

LIMITATIONS

A large proportion of the included studies were inconclusive because of poor reporting, missing data, inconsistent results and/or great uncertainty in the treatment effect estimates. This warrants cautious interpretation of the findings. The evidence on complications was scarce, which may be because of the absence or rarity of these events or because of under-reporting. The poor reporting meant that it was not possible to explore contextual factors that might have influenced study results and also reduced the applicability of the findings to routine clinical practice in the UK. The scope of the review was limited to evidence published in English in 2008 or later, which could be interpreted as a weakness; however, systematic reviews would provide summary evidence for studies published before 2008.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with THR, revision rates for RS were higher, mean costs for RS were higher and mean QALYs gained were lower; RS was dominated by THR. Similar results were obtained in the deterministic and probabilistic analyses and for all age and sex groups THR was almost 100% cost-effective at any willingness-to-pay level. Revision rates for all types of THR were low. Category A THR (cemented components with a polyethylene-on-metal articulation) was more cost-effective for older age groups. However, across all age-sex groups combined, the mean cost for category E THR (cemented components with a polyethylene-on-ceramic articulation) was slightly lower and the mean QALYs gained were slightly higher. Category E therefore dominated the other four categories. Certain types of THR appeared to confer some benefit, including larger femoral head sizes, use of a cemented cup, use of a cross-linked polyethylene cup liner and a ceramic-on-ceramic as opposed to a metal-on-polyethylene articulation. Further RCTs with long-term follow-up are needed.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013003924.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Three Year RSA Evaluation of Vitamin E Diffused Highly Cross-linked Polyethylene Liners and Cup Stability

Vitamin E diffusion into highly cross-linked polyethylene (E-XLPE) is a method for enhancing oxidative stability of acetabular liners. The purpose of this study was to evaluate in vivo penetration of E-XLPE using radiostereometric analysis (RSA). Eighty-four hips were recruited into a prospective 10-year RSA. This is the first evaluation of the multicenter cohort after 3-years. All patients received E-XLPE liners (E1, Biomet) and porous-titanium coated cups (Regenerex, Biomet). There was no difference (P=0.450) in median femoral head penetration into the E-XLPE liners at 3-years comparing cobalt-chrome heads (-0.028mm; inter-quartile range (IQR) - 0.065 to 0.047) with ceramic heads (-0.043mm, IQR - 0.143to0.042). The 3-year follow-up indicates minimal E-XLPE liner penetration regardless of head material and minimal early cup movement.

A randomised trial comparing a short and a standard-length metaphyseal engaging cementless femoral stem using radiostereometric analysis

This was a randomised controlled trial studying the safety of a new short metaphyseal fixation (SMF) stem. We hypothesised that it would have similar early clinical results and micromovement to those of a standard-length tapered Synergy metaphyseal fixation stem. Using radiostereometric analysis (RSA) we compared the two stems in 43 patients. A short metaphyseal fixation stem was used in 22 patients and a Synergy stem in 21 patients. No difference was found in the clinical outcomes pre- or post-operatively between groups. RSA showed no significant differences two years post-operatively in mean micromovement between the two stems (except for varus/valgus tilt at p = 0.05) (subsidence 0.94 mm (sd 1.71) vs 0.32 mm (sd 0.45), p = 0.66; rotation 0.96° (sd 1.49) vs 1.41° (sd 2.95), p = 0.88; and total migration 1.09 mm (sd 1.74) vs 0.73 mm (sd 0.72), p = 0.51). A few stems (four SMF and three Synergy) had initial migration > 1.0 mm but stabilised by three to six months, with the exception of one SMF stem which required revision three years post-operatively. For most stems, total micromovement was very low at two years (subsidence < 0.5 mm, rotation < 1.0°, total migration < 0.5 mm), which was consistent with osseous ingrowth. The small sample makes it difficult to confirm the universal applicability of or elucidate the potential contraindications to the use of this particular new design of stem.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015; 97-B:595–602.

Current concepts, classification, and results in short stem hip arthroplasty

Various short hip stems have been introduced with differing implant concepts of femoral fixation and implant length. There is a lack of proper classification for short hip stems, with a clear and accepted definition for implant length and extent of bone preservation in the metaphyseal and diaphyseal femur. This study analyzed the length of short hip stems. Stems were divided into collum, partial collum, and trochanter-sparing implants. An additional category was added, trochanter harming, which was defined as interruption of the circumferential integrity of the femoral neck. For all of the femoral components described, the designs were compared, excluding stems with insufficient clinical data. The 15 finally selected stems were classified as collum (1 stem), partial collum (7 stems), trochanter sparing (4 stems), and trochanter harming (3 stems). Mid-term results (>5 years of follow-up) were available for only 3 designs in the partial collum group. Taking into account the results of short-term studies (<5 years of follow-up), the femoral revision rate per 100 observed component years was <1 for most total hip arthroplasties. However, the studies varied greatly regarding level of significance, and short hip stems without published results are available commercially. Short hip stems cannot be circumscribed by a simple length limit. For some designs, clinical data collected from large patient cohorts showed a survivorship comparable to traditional stems. In cases that must be revised, this often can be performed with a conventional primary stem, fulfilling the promise to preserve bone for potential future revisions in younger patients.

Bone loss around a stable, partly threaded hydroxyapatite-coated cup: a prospective cohort study using RSA and DXA

STUDY PURPOSE

Aseptic loosening of the acetabular component is the most common reason for revision after primary THA, and periprosthetic demineralisation has been described as a potential cause for this process. The trabeculae-oriented pattern (TOP)-cup is a flat, hydroxyapatite (HA)-coated titanium shell with a threaded rim that was developed in order to minimise periprosthetic bone loss. We hypothesised that this cup provides good primary stability and improves preservation of periprosthetic bone mineral density (BMD).

BASIC PROCEDURES

A prospective cohort study on 30 patients receiving the TOP cup was carried out. Preoperative total hip BMD and postoperative periprosthetic BMD in five periprosthetic regions of interest were investigated by dual energy radiographic absorptiometry (DXA), cup migration was analysed by radiostereometry (RSA), and the Harris hips score (HHS) was determined.

MAIN FINDINGS

Mean HHS increased from 49 (24-79) preoperatively to 99 (92-100) after two years. DXA after one year demonstrated substantial BMD loss in the proximal periprosthetic zones 1 (-18%), zone 2 (-16 %) and zone 3 (-9%, all p<0.001 when compared with baseline BMD determined immediately postoperatively). The bone loss in these regions did not recover after two years. RSA (performed on 16 patients) showed that only very limited micromotion of the implant occurred: Mean cranial migration was 0.01 mm (95% confidence interval (CI): -0.09-0.12) and mean inclination decreased by 0.02º (CI: -0.43-0.39) after two years.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that the TOP cup provides good primary stability in the short-term. However, substantial BMD loss in proximal periprosthetic areas indicates that the design of this cup cannot prevent periprosthetic bone loss that has also been observed around other uncemented cups.

Short bone-conserving stems in cementless hip arthroplasty

➤ Short bone-conserving femoral stems in total hip arthroplasty were designed to preserve proximal bone stock.➤ Given the distinct fixation principles and location of loading among these bone-conserving stems, a classification system is essential to compare clinical outcomes.➤ Due to the low quality of currently available evidence, only a weak recommendation can be provided for clinical usage of certain stem designs, while some other designs cannot be recommended at this time.➤ A high prevalence of stem malalignment, incorrect sizing, subsidence, and intraoperative fractures has been reported in a subset of these short stem designs.➤ Stronger evidence, including prospective multicenter randomized trials comparing standard stems with these newer designs, is necessary before widespread use can be recommended.

Adherence of hip and knee arthroplasty studies to RSA standardization guidelines. A systematic review

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Guidelines for standardization of radiostereometry (RSA) of implants were published in 2005 to facilitate comparison of outcomes between various research groups. In this systematic review, we determined how well studies have adhered to these guidelines.

METHODS

We carried out a literature search to identify all articles published between January 2000 and December 2011 that used RSA in the evaluation of hip or knee prosthesis migration. 2 investigators independently evaluated each of the studies for adherence to the 13 individual guideline items. Since some of the 13 points included more than 1 criterion, studies were assessed on whether each point was fully met, partially met, or not met.

RESULTS

153 studies that met our inclusion criteria were identified. 61 of these were published before the guidelines were introduced (2000-2005) and 92 after the guidelines were introduced (2006-2011). The methodological quality of RSA studies clearly improved from 2000 to 2011. None of the studies fully met all 13 guidelines. Nearly half (43) of the studies published after the guidelines demonstrated a high methodological quality and adhered at least partially to 10 of the 13 guidelines, whereas less than one-fifth (11) of the studies published before the guidelines had the same methodological quality. Commonly unaddressed guideline items were related to imaging methodology, determination of precision from double examinations, and also mean error of rigid-body fitting and condition number cutoff levels.

INTERPRETATION

The guidelines have improved methodological reporting in RSA studies, but adherence to these guidelines is still relatively low. There is a need to update and clarify the guidelines for clinical hip and knee arthroplasty RSA studies.

Revision rate after short-stem total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review of 49 studies

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The aim of short-stem total hip arthroplasty is to preserve proximal bone stock for future revisions, to improve biomechanical reconstruction, and to make minimally invasive approaches easier. It is therefore being increasingly considered to be a sound alternative to conventional total hip arthroplasty, especially for young and active patients. However, it is still unknown whether survival rates of short-stem hips match current standards. We made a systematic summary of reported overall survival after short-stem total hip arthroplasty.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of English, French, German, and Dutch literature. 2 assessors independently identified clinical studies on short-stem hip arthroplasty. After recalculating reported revision rates, we determined whether each implant had a projected revision rate of 10% or less at 10 years of follow-up or a revision rate per 100 observed component years of 1 or less. Stems were classified as "collum", "partial collum", or "trochanter-sparing".

RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION

We found 49 studies, or 51 cohorts, involving 19 different stems. There was a large increase in recent publications. The majority of studies included had a follow-up of less than 5 years. We found a large number of observational studies on "partial collum" and "trochanter-sparing" stems, demonstrating adequate survival rates at medium-term follow-up. Clinical evidence from "collum stem" studies was limited to a small number of studies with a medium-term follow-up period. These studies did not show a satisfactory overall survival rate.