The innovation trap

Does Knee Prosthesis Survivorship Improve When Implant Designs Change? Findings from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry

BACKGROUND

TKA generally has excellent long-term survivorship. When a new knee system supersedes a previous model, increased survivorship, improved functional performance, or both may be expected, because key areas of design modification are often targeted to address wear, stability, and the patellofemoral articulation. However, not all design changes are beneficial, and to our knowledge, knee arthroplasty has not been systematically evaluated in the context of design changes that occur during the development of new knee arthroplasty systems.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

Using the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) we performed multiple old-to-new comparisons of frequently used contemporary knee implants to ask: (1) does overall prosthesis survivorship free from revision increase when a new knee prosthesis system is introduced to replace a prior prosthesis system? (2) Has survivorship free from revision improved for the revision indications of wear, instability, and patellofemoral articulation issues, where development efforts have been concentrated?

METHODS

Data from the AOANJRR from September 1999 to December 2017 were used to compare the survivorship of prostheses free from revision at a maximum of 17 years in procedures where a new design model was introduced to replace a prior knee system from the same manufacturer. Only prosthesis systems used in a minimum of 2000 primary TKA procedures for osteoarthritis that had a minimum of 5 years of follow-up were included. Varus-valgus constrained and hinge TKA designs were excluded. Cruciate-retaining, posterior-stabilized, and medial pivot-design knees were considered separately. The new and old prosthesis systems were paired for analysis. Survivorship was calculated with Kaplan Meier estimates and comparisons were performed using the Cox proportional hazards method. Subanalyses according to the three main revision indications were performed, and where possible, analyses were performed based on polyethylene types (highly cross-linked polyethylene and ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene), combined and separated. Revision was defined as a reoperation of a previous knee arthroplasty in which one or more of the components was removed, replaced, or added. There were 323,955 TKA procedures and 11 new prosthesis system designs that were introduced to replace an earlier knee system from the same manufacturer. Of these prosthesis system pairs, six were cruciate-retaining prostheses, four were posterior-stabilized designs, and one was a medial pivot design.

RESULTS

Six of the 11 knee system pairs showed improved survivorship with the new design, three were no different, and in two, the newer prosthesis systems had a higher rate of revision than the old one did. When revision for wear was analyzed, five prosthesis systems showed improvement, five were no different, and one had a higher rate of revision than the previous system did. There was no improvement in the rate of revision for instability; seven new prosthesis systems showed no difference from the previous system and four new prosthesis systems had a higher rate of revision than the previous system did. A subanalysis of revision for patellofemoral complications showed improvement in two comparisons, no difference in six, and a higher revision rate in two; one could not be calculated because of an insufficient number of revisions for this reason.

CONCLUSIONS

It is difficult to predict whether a new system will demonstrate better survival than a previous one, and widespread uptake of a new design before a benefit is shown in robust clinical studies is unwise. Similarly, adoption of a new system for which there is no difference in survivorship from a previous model may be premature because a new device may have associated unknown and unintended consequences. Healthcare policy makers and therapeutic device regulators should similarly be guided by results and seek out peer-reviewed evidence before accepting change to established practice. Surgeons must be aware that implant changes may not translate into better survivorship and must seek compelling evidence of improvement in survival and/or function before changing systems.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic study.

Surgeon's Preference in Total Knee Replacement: A Quantitative Examination of Attributes, Reasons for Alteration, and Barriers to Change

BACKGROUND

The reasons why surgeons prefer a particular total knee replacement (TKR) to other viable options with lower cost or lower revision risk remain uncertain. This study examined the concept of surgeon's preference in TKR; including the self-assigned utility of their preferred prosthesis, reasons to alter usual preference and barriers to permanently changing preference.

METHODS

Using a multinational electronic survey, 347 TKR performing orthopedic surgeons were studied using anonymous mandatory responses, mutually exclusive closed options, multiple responses blocking, automatic stem randomization, Likert scale weighting, and an absence of neutral options.

RESULTS

The highest rated of the 17 attributes were "reproducibility of outcome," "best functional outcome," and "better kinematics." The lowest rated were a "key-opinion leader or mentor uses it" and "new or innovative." "Lowest revision risk" ranked 10th, with 19.9% of surgeons stating it did not influence their preference. Cost did not influence 52.1% of surgeons and 33.7% agreed that their institution or system limited their preference. Surgeon's demographics and preferred prosthesis or technique altered some attribute ratings including surgical volume, country of practice, type of preferred implant; however, revision risk rating was not altered by any factor. Cost considerations altered rating of barriers to technique change.

CONCLUSION

Understanding why surgeons prefer certain TKR prostheses or techniques to other viable alternatives is vital to reduce unwarranted variation. This study suggests that the self-assigned reasons driving surgeon's preferences, reasons for preference alteration, and barriers to change are multifactorial, diverse, and complex, with revision risk not being the highest rated attribute.

Why do some titanium-alloy total hip arthroplasty modular necks fail?

BACKGROUND

Increased modularity in total hip arthroplasty (THA) through extra junction between the neck and the femoral stem is gaining popularity among orthopaedic community. However, the advantage of the additional junction is shadowed by an increased risk of mechanical failure. The aim of this study was to describe the exact mechanism of fracture of the modular femoral neck in an uncemented stem.

METHODS

Clinical, metallurgical, and mechanical analysis including finite-element modelling and elemental-sensitive tissue analysis with the micro-PIXE method was performed on two patients treated with fully modular primary THA made from Titanium alloy of the same oval taper-cone design. In patient A revision was performed 7.8 years after the unilateral primary procedure because of modular femoral neck fracture, while patient B was left-side revised 15 years after the bilateral primary procedure because of aseptic loosening of the femoral stem.

RESULTS

Body weight was 30% higher and the arm of implanted modular femoral neck was 51% longer in patient A compared to patient B. Therefore, the stress ratio on the modular femoral neck of patient A was calculated to be 2.45 times higher than in patient B, preventing cold welding and producing taper damage and degradation at the neck-stem junction. Large clusters of metallic debris containing Titanium and Vanadium from the alloy were present in the periprosthetic soft tissues of patient A.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with higher body mass index treated with fully modular Ti-alloy THA may be at increased risk to experience catastrophic failure of the device. Orthopaedic surgeons should avoid using long necks whenever possible, as these are especially prone to develop a vicious circle starting with the fretting process and crevice corrosion at the taper-cone connection, leading to crack initiation and crack propagation, accelerated by the increased vulnerability of the Ti-alloy in biologic media, ultimately ending as fracture at the typical site. Serum Ti concentration may represent a rough estimation of taper degradation and patients with elevated levels should be warned and followed accordingly.