Nationwide review of mixed and non-mixed components from different manufacturers in total hip arthroplasty

Dual Mobility Articulation in Total Hip Arthroplasty: Mixed Femoral and Acetabular Components are a Feasible Option

BACKGROUND

The utilization of a different manufacturer for the prosthetic femoral head and the polyethylene insert in dual mobility (DM) for total hip arthroplasty (THA) may be necessary, especially in the revision setting. However, there is no data in the literature about this application. This study evaluated the outcomes of mixed manufacturer components, with the hypothesis that there would be no difference in measured outcomes compared to matched components.

METHODS

The DM articulations implanted during THA revision were retrospectively reviewed from 2011 to 2017. The study group was then stratified into 2 cohorts: matching components or mixed components. Of 130 hips included in the study with DM articulations with average follow-up of 7 years, 103 had mixed and 27 had matching manufacturer components. Rates of all cause reoperation and revision, intraprosthetic dislocation, dislocation, and aseptic loosening were compared using Chi-squared and Fisher's exact test; survival analysis was also performed.

RESULTS

Matched and mixed manufacturer implants had no significant difference between all cause reoperation (33 versus 25.2%), dislocation (14.8 versus 7.7%), and aseptic loosening (3.7 versus 3.9%), respectively. Higher rates of intraprosthetic dislocation (11 versus 0.97%) were observed in the matching component cohort. Survival analysis showed similar outcomes at 2, 5, and 10 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Mixed-component DM articulations show similar results compared to matching components. The off-label use of mixed manufacture DM articulation in THA is a feasible and safe option in the correct patient. Furthermore, when encountering a well-fixed femoral stem or acetabular shell, the use of a mixed component DM articulations may reduce the morbidity for the patient and prevent revision of all components.

Machine Learning Did Not Outperform Conventional Competing Risk Modeling to Predict Revision Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Estimating the risk of revision after arthroplasty could inform patient and surgeon decision-making. However, there is a lack of well-performing prediction models assisting in this task, which may be due to current conventional modeling approaches such as traditional survivorship estimators (such as Kaplan-Meier) or competing risk estimators. Recent advances in machine learning survival analysis might improve decision support tools in this setting. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the performance of machine learning compared with that of conventional modeling to predict revision after arthroplasty.

QUESTION/PURPOSE

Does machine learning perform better than traditional regression models for estimating the risk of revision for patients undergoing hip or knee arthroplasty?

METHODS

Eleven datasets from published studies from the Dutch Arthroplasty Register reporting on factors associated with revision or survival after partial or total knee and hip arthroplasty between 2018 and 2022 were included in our study. The 11 datasets were observational registry studies, with a sample size ranging from 3038 to 218,214 procedures. We developed a set of time-to-event models for each dataset, leading to 11 comparisons. A set of predictors (factors associated with revision surgery) was identified based on the variables that were selected in the included studies. We assessed the predictive performance of two state-of-the-art statistical time-to-event models for 1-, 2-, and 3-year follow-up: a Fine and Gray model (which models the cumulative incidence of revision) and a cause-specific Cox model (which models the hazard of revision). These were compared with a machine-learning approach (a random survival forest model, which is a decision tree-based machine-learning algorithm for time-to-event analysis). Performance was assessed according to discriminative ability (time-dependent area under the receiver operating curve), calibration (slope and intercept), and overall prediction error (scaled Brier score). Discrimination, known as the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, measures the model's ability to distinguish patients who achieved the outcomes from those who did not and ranges from 0.5 to 1.0, with 1.0 indicating the highest discrimination score and 0.50 the lowest. Calibration plots the predicted versus the observed probabilities; a perfect plot has an intercept of 0 and a slope of 1. The Brier score calculates a composite of discrimination and calibration, with 0 indicating perfect prediction and 1 the poorest. A scaled version of the Brier score, 1 - (model Brier score/null model Brier score), can be interpreted as the amount of overall prediction error.

RESULTS

Using machine learning survivorship analysis, we found no differences between the competing risks estimator and traditional regression models for patients undergoing arthroplasty in terms of discriminative ability (patients who received a revision compared with those who did not). We found no consistent differences between the validated performance (time-dependent area under the receiver operating characteristic curve) of different modeling approaches because these values ranged between -0.04 and 0.03 across the 11 datasets (the time-dependent area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of the models across 11 datasets ranged between 0.52 to 0.68). In addition, the calibration metrics and scaled Brier scores produced comparable estimates, showing no advantage of machine learning over traditional regression models.

CONCLUSION

Machine learning did not outperform traditional regression models.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Neither machine learning modeling nor traditional regression methods were sufficiently accurate in order to offer prognostic information when predicting revision arthroplasty. The benefit of these modeling approaches may be limited in this context.

Revision Dual Mobility Constructs With Unmatched Acetabular and Femoral Components Do Not Increase Failure Rate

BACKGROUND

Dual mobility (DM) constructs for revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) have continued to grow in popularity to mitigate instability. This benefit comes at the cost of potential unique modes of failure, and there are theoretical concerns that combining femoral and acetabular components from different manufacturers could lead to increased failure rates. We aimed to investigate rates of reoperation between matched and unmatched DM implants used in revision THA.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 217 revision THAs performed with DM constructs between July 2012 and September 2021 at a single institution. Dual mobility (DM) constructs were classified as "matched" if the acetabular and femoral components were manufactured by the same company. They were classified as "unmatched" if the acetabular and femoral components were manufactured by different companies. The primary outcome was reoperation for any reason.

RESULTS

There were 136 matched DM constructs and 81 unmatched constructs. Average follow-up was 4.6 years (range, 2.0 to 9.6 years). There was no difference in reoperation rate between matched and unmatched groups (11.0 versus 13.6%, P = .576). The most common reasons for reoperation in both groups were instability and periprosthetic joint infection. There was 1 revision for intraprosthetic dislocation in the matched group.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of unmatched DM components in revision THA was common and did not increase the risk of reoperation at an average of 4.6-year follow-up. This information can be helpful in operative planning, but further research on long-term survival will be necessary.

Fracture of Contemporary Femoral Stems: Common Trends in This Rare Occurrence

BACKGROUND

Fracture of contemporary femoral stems is a rare occurrence in total hip arthroplasty (THA). A knowledge gap remains regarding manufacturing, patient, and surgeon factors that may contribute to the increased risk of this complication.

METHODS

We analyzed 13 contemporary fractured porous coated femoral stems of various designs to determine cause and contributing factors of mechanical failure. Cases included 12 men and one woman who had an average age at index surgery of 53 years (range, 34 to 76). There were ten of 13 patients who had a body mass index (BMI) greater than 30 (obese); 3 of the 10 had a BMI greater than 40. The mean time to fracture was 7.6 years (range, 7 months to 12 years).

RESULTS

There were four titanium alloy stems that fractured an average of 3.6 years post-revision surgery for head/cup exchange, and had associated iatrogenic mechanical and electrocautery damage to the femoral neck at fracture initiation sites. There were six modular stems that failed at the stem-sleeve or stem-neck interfaces with evidence of fretting corrosion. For two stem-neck fractures, mis-matched head/stem combinations from different manufacturers resulted in untested mechanical offsets and loading. There were two proximal neck fractures and one mid-shaft fracture of coated cobalt-chromium alloy stems that occurred in three obese men. The neck fractures (10 to 12 years) were well-fixed stems. Lack of proximal fixation contributed to the mid-shaft fracture (7 months).

CONCLUSION

While rare, femoral stem fractures pose catastrophic outcomes in primary and revision THA. Manufacturing, patient, and surgical factors contributing to stem failures were identified, including patient obesity, heat-treatment reduction of mechanical properties, iatrogenic implant damage, and mixing of different vendor stems and heads.

Survival rate of total hip replacements with matched and with mixed components with 10.7 years mean follow-up

BACKGROUND

Mixing and matching components from different manufacturers in total hip arthroplasty is a frequently used off-label praxis. The clinical consequences of this procedure have not been studied in detail.

METHODS

860 patients with matched and 1067 patients with mixed primary total hip replacement (THR) components carried out between 1 January 2002 and 31 December 2004, were selected from our Institution registry. The analysis endpoint was set at 1 January 2016. THRs with poorly performing components were excluded from study groups. Kaplan-Meier survival curves for both groups were calculated and compared using the Log-Rank test and the demographic data using the chi-square test. Correlations between demographic data and revisions were calculated using bivariate correlation.

RESULTS

28 revisions were carried out in the matched group and 67 in the mixed group. The 14-year overall survival probability was significantly better in the former (96.0%) than in the mixed group (92.7%) (p = 0.002). Survival, free of aseptic and septic failures, was statistically, significantly higher in the matched group (p = 0.026 and p = 0.007, respectively).The survival of the mixed subgroup with heads and stems from the same manufacturer did not differ statistically from that of the matched group (p = 0.079).

CONCLUSIONS

In contrast to the results listed in the National Joint Registry and the New Zealand Joint Registry, the survival probability in our study was, statistically, significantly higher in total hip replacements using components of the same manufacturer. Importantly, mixing and matching the components of different manufacturers led to similar survival providing the head and the stem were from the same manufacturer.

EFORT recommendations for off-label use, mix & match and mismatch in hip and knee arthroplasty

Off-label use is frequently practiced in primary and revision arthroplasty, as there may be indications for the application of implants for purposes outside the one the manufacturers intended.

Under certain circumstances, patients may benefit from selective application of mix & match. This can refer to primary hip arthroplasty (if evidence suggests that the combination of devices from different manufacturers has superior results) and revision hip or knee arthroplasty (when the exchange of one component only is necessary and the invasiveness of surgery can be reduced).

Within the EFORT ‘Implant and Patient Safety Initiative’, evidence- and consensus-based recommendations have been developed for the safe application of off-label use and mix & match in primary as well as revision hip and knee arthroplasty.

Prior to the application of a medical device for hip or knee arthroplasty off-label and within a mix & match situation, surgeons should balance the risks and benefits to the patient, obtain informed consent, and document the decision process appropriately.

Nevertheless, it is crucial for surgeons to only combine implants that are compatible. Mismatch of components, where their sizes or connections do not fit, may have catastrophic effects and is a surgical mistake.

Surgeons must be fully aware of the features of the components that they use in off-label indications or during mix & match applications, must be appropriately trained and must audit their results.

Considering the frequent practice of off-label and mix & match as well as the potential medico-legal issues, further research is necessary to obtain more data about the appropriate indications and outcomes for those procedures.

Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2021;6:982-1005. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.6.210080

Medico-Legal Issues Related to Hip and Knee Arthroplasty: A Literature Review Including the Indian Scenario

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) are commonly performed surgeries worldwide. The number of joint replacement surgeries being performed has increased considerably over the past two decades, but it has also seen an increase in litigation associated with it. The purpose of our study was to review and consolidate literature regarding medico-legal issues pertaining to THA and TKA cases. We looked at the causes of litigation, medico legal aspects of pre-operative requirements, optimisation of medical condition, indications and contraindications for arthroplasty, informed consent, implants, mixing of components from different manufacturers and post-operative rehabilitation. We also wanted to analyse available literature and legal proceedings regarding these cases in India specifically.

Femoral prosthesis neck fracture following total hip arthroplasty - a systematic review

PURPOSE

Head-neck modularity was introduced into total hip arthroplasty to provide more intraoperative surgical options. However, modularity led to new problems, such as trunnionosis and fractures of the femoral prosthesis neck. The purpose of this study was to identify risk factors for hip neck fractures and to provide recommendations to prevent damage and fractures of the neck.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines.

RESULTS

Thirty-three case studies were included. Methodologically, most included studies were of moderate or good quality. The 80 neck fractures included in the review took place, on average, 7 years after stem placement. Male gender, high body weight, obesity, previous revision surgery, mixing components from different manufacturers, use of long skirted heads, cobalt-chromium (large size) heads were identified as potential risk factors.

CONCLUSION

Hip neck fractures occur on average 7 years after stem placement. The etiology of hip neck fractures is multifactorial. This review revealed several preventable implant- and surgeon-related risk factors.

The Accolade TMZF stem fulfils the demands of modern stem design: Minimum 5-year survival in a cohort of 937 patients

PURPOSE

Modern hip stem design includes a prosthesis that has a predictable outcome in all total hip arthroplasty (THA) patients, regardless of approach, surgeon or patient characteristics. Introduction without a learning curve and, in cases of problems, the possibility for a simple revision are other prerequisites. The purpose of this study is to evaluate whether the Accolade TMZF stem (Stryker Orthopedics, Mahwah, New Jersey, USA) is suitable to fulfil these demands. We report our mid-term survival of the Accolade TMZF hip stem in all patients from the first implantation at our institute.

METHODS

From the start of using the Accolade TMZF stem (March 2009) until February 2011, 937 THA were performed by 12 surgeons using a posterolateral or anterolateral approach. Survival of the stem was calculated using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Effect of approach, patient age and comorbidity were analysed with a Cox proportional hazards' model. The learning effect was determined by comparing the number of revisions in the surgeons' first 20 THAs with their next 30 THAs and the subsequent THAs.

RESULTS

At 5 years, cumulative stem survival was 97.9% based on revisions for all reasons and 98.8% with aseptic loosening as endpoint. We found no effect of surgical approach, patient age or comorbidity on stem survival. No learning effect was found.

CONCLUSION

The Accolade TMZF stem fulfilled the demands of modern stem design.

The effect of bearing type on the outcome of total hip arthroplasty

Background and purpose - Alternative bearing surfaces such as ceramics and highly crosslinked polyethylene (HXLPE) were developed in order to further improve implant performance of total hip arthroplasties (THAs). Whether these alternative bearing surfaces result in increased longevity is subject to debate. Patients and methods - Using the Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI), we identified all patients with a primary, non-metal-on-metal THA implanted in the Netherlands in the period 2007-2016 (n = 209,912). Cumulative incidence of revision was calculated to determine differences in survivorship of THAs according to bearing type: metal-on-polyethylene (MoPE), metal-on-HXLPE (MoHXLPE), ceramic-on-polyethylene (CoPE), ceramic-on-HXLPE (CoHXLPE), ceramic-on-ceramic (CoC), and oxidized-zirconium-on-(HXL)polyethylene (Ox(HXL)PE). Multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression ratios (HRs) were used for comparisons. Results - After adjustment for confounders, CoHXLPE, CoC, and Ox(HXL)PE resulted in a statistically significantly lower risk of revision compared with MoPE after 9 years follow-up (HR =0.8-0.9 respectively, compared with HR =1.0). For small (22-28 mm) femoral head THAs, lower revision rates were found for CoPE and CoHXLPE (HR =0.9). In the 36 mm femoral head subgroup, CoC-bearing THAs had a lower HR compared with MoHXLPE (HR =0.7 versus 1.0). Crude revision rates in young patients (< 60 years) for CoHXLPE, CoC, and Ox(HXL)PE (HR =0.7) were lower than MoPE (HR =1.0). However, after adjustment for case mix and confounders these differences were not statistically significant. Interpretation - We found a mid-term lower risk of revision for CoHXLPE, CoC, and Ox(HXL)PE bearings compared with traditional MoPE-bearing surfaces.

Mixing of Head-Stem Components in Total Hip Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Implant manufacturers proclaim that the tapers of modular total hip arthroplasty are not standardized and can vary from manufacturer to manufacturer. That is why the combination of various components from different manufacturers ("Mix and Match") is not permitted. In this study, different taper combinations were investigated experimentally to assess the effect of "Mix and Match" regarding the taper connection strength.

METHODS

Torque-off tests using hip stems and metal femoral heads from 6 different implant manufacturers were performed. First the components were tested as intended and afterwards the stems were combined with metal heads from other manufacturers.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in taper connection strength when stems from the manufacturers Link, Smith & Nephew, and Zimmer were combined with heads from other manufacturers. The Biomet stems showed a significantly reduced taper connection strength if femoral heads of Aesculap, DePuy, or Smith & Nephew were used. On the contrary, the DePuy stems in combination with the originally intended femoral heads showed a significantly lower taper connection strength compared to the use of heads from Link, Biomet, and Zimmer. The same was observed for the Aesculap stems in combination with Zimmer heads.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study suggest that mixing components from different manufacturers may affect the taper connection strength and could reduce the stability. As safety should be a high priority in patient treatment, any potential risks should be avoided. Therefore, mixing and matching of heads and femoral stems from different manufacturers cannot be recommended.

Long-Term Survival of Total Hip Arthroplasty Using Implants From Different Manufacturers

BACKGROUND

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) can be performed using either femoral and acetabular components provided by the same manufacturer (matched components) or components from different manufacturers (unmatched components). We hypothesized that there would be no difference in outcomes following the use of unmatched compared to matched components.

METHODS

Data from a nationwide joint registry, the New Zealand Joint Registry (NZJR), were analyzed to assess long-term outcomes of using unmatched implants in THA.

RESULTS

The NZJR has recorded a total of 108,613 primary THAs. We excluded combinations with less than 50 implantations, leaving 99,732 arthroplasties (90.5%). The unmatched group consisted of 24,537 (24.6%) THAs. Revision procedures were required in 3434 (4.6%) of the matched group, at a rate of 0.72/100 component years and 1078 (4.4%) of the unmatched group, a rate of 0.69/100 component years (P = .049). THAs with metal-on-metal or ceramic-on-metal bearings were overrepresented in the matched group. When analysis was repeated with these implants excluded, there was no longer a difference in revision rate between groups (4.0% revisions, 0.65/100 component years and 4.3% revisions, 0.67/100 component years [P = .742]). Survival analysis showed 17-year survival for matched components and unmatched to be within 95% confidence intervals at all time points. There was a small, statistically significant improvement in Oxford Hip Scores for the unmatched group compared with the matched group.

CONCLUSION

Data from the NZJR confirm that the use of unmatched components in THA has no adverse effect on outcomes.