Maziar Mohaddes

Increased risk of revision in patients with non-traumatic femoral head necrosis.

Background and purpose Previous studies of patients who have undergone total hip arthroplasty (THA) due to femoral head necrosis (FHN) have shown an increased risk of revision compared to cases with primary osteoarthritis (POA), but recent studies have suggested that this procedure is not associated with poor outcome. We compared the risk of revision after operation with THA due to FHN or POA in the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association (NARA) database including Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden. Patients and methods 427,806 THAs performed between 1995 and 2011 were included. The relative risk of revision for any reason, for aseptic loosening, dislocation, deep infection, and periprosthetic fracture was studied before and after adjustment for covariates using Cox regression models. Results 416,217 hips with POA (mean age 69 (SD 10), 59% females) and 11,589 with FHN (mean age 65 (SD 16), 58% females) were registered. The mean follow-up was 6.3 (SD 4.3) years. After 2 years of observation, 1.7% in the POA group and 3.0% in the FHN group had been revised. The corresponding proportions after 16 years of observation were 4.2% and 6.1%, respectively. The 16-year survival in the 2 groups was 86% (95% CI: 86–86) and 77% (CI: 74–80). After adjusting for covariates, the relative risk (RR) of revision for any reason was higher in patients with FHN for both periods studied (up to 2 years: RR = 1.44, 95% CI: 1.34–1.54; p < 0.001; and 2–16 years: RR = 1.25, 1.14–1.38; p < 0.001). Interpretation Patients with FHN had an overall increased risk of revision. This increased risk persisted over the entire period of observation and covered more or less all of the 4 most common reasons for revision.

High early migration of the revised acetabular component is a predictor of late cup loosening: 312 cup revisions followed with radiostereometric analysis for 2-20 years

Introduction Radiostereometric analysis (RSA) is an accurate and precise measurement tool of migration and rotation of implants. We investigated if early migration measured with RSA can be used to predict the risk of later aseptic loosening in acetabular revision surgery. Patients and methods A total of 312 patients who underwent acetabular revision surgery were followed by RSA measurements for 2 to 20 years. The endpoint was either re-revision due to aseptic loosening or loosening on last available radiographic examination. Cox regression model was used to evaluate the predictive value of early migration. Results A total of 16 acetabular cups were re-revised due to aseptic loosening and 7 unrevised cups were radiographically loose. Every mm of proximal migration 2 years postoperatively increased the risk of aseptic loosening by 37% (hazard ratio (HR) 1.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.18-1.58). Adjusting for differences in base line demographics, bone defects and surgical techniques in a Cox regression model, risk of aseptic loosening with every mm of proximal migration was even higher (HR 1.94, 95% CI 1.34-2.82, p<0.001). Conclusions We found a strong relationship between early migration measured by RSA and risk of late aseptic loosening in acetabular revision surgery. Monitoring proximal migration with RSA should be considered as an essential step in quality assessment when new implants and novel techniques are introduced in acetabular revision surgery.

Short-term survival of the trabecular metal cup is similar to that of standard cups used in acetabular revision surgery

Background and purpose — The use of trabecular metal (TM) cups in revision surgery has increased worldwide during the last decade. Since the introduction of the TM cup in Sweden in 2006, this design has gradually replaced other uncemented designs used in Sweden. According to data from the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register (SHAR) in 2012, one-third of all uncemented first-time cup revisions were performed using a TM cup. We compared the risk of reoperation and re-revision for TM cups and the 2 other most frequently used cup designs in acetabular revisions reported to the SHAR. The hypothesis was that the performance of TM cups is as good as that of established designs in the short term. Patients and methods — The study population consisted of 2,384 patients who underwent 2,460 revisions during the period 2006 through 2012. The most commonly used cup designs were the press-fit porous-coated cup (n = 870), the trabecular metal cup (n = 805), and the cemented all-polyethylene cup (n = 785). 54% of the patients were female, and the median age at index revision was 72 (19–95) years. Reoperation was defined as a second surgical intervention, and re-revision—meaning exchange or removal of the cup—was used as endpoint. The mean follow-up time was 3.3 (0–7) years. Results — There were 215 reoperations, 132 of which were re-revisions. The unadjusted and adjusted risk of reoperation or re-revision was not significantly different for the TM cup and the other 2 cup designs. Interpretation — Our data support continued use of TM cups in acetabular revisions. Further follow-up is necessary to determine whether trabecular metal cups can reduce the re-revision rate in the long term, compared to the less costly porous press-fit and cemented designs.

Method of fixation does not influence the overall risk of rerevision in first-time cup revisions.

BackgroundDuring the last two decades, uncemented fixation has been increasingly preferred worldwide during cup revision surgery. In Sweden, the number of uncemented cup revisions has been increasing during the last decade. However, it is unclear whether the risk of rerevision differs between cemented and uncemented cups.Question/purposesWe determined (1) the risk of rerevision after cemented and uncemented fixation; (2) the influence of concomitant stem revision on the risk of rerevision of the cup; (3) the difference in risk of rerevision of an uncemented cup revision compared with liner revision only; and (4) whether the surgical incision influenced the risk of rerevision.MethodsBetween 1979 and 2010, 19,342 first-time cup revisions were reported to the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register. From these, 749 were excluded (hip resurfacing, cases with tumor diagnoses, and missing data) leaving 18,593 (73% cemented) for further analysis. We used a Cox regression model adjusted for age, sex, primary diagnosis, method of fixation, concomitant stem revision, and cemented/uncemented fixation to assess risk of rerevision.ResultsThe relative risk for rerevision for any reason did not differ between cemented and uncemented fixation (relative risk [RR], 0.94). If the stem was not revised at index revision, the risk of further cup revision increased twofold (RR, 1.91). Liner revisions were associated with a 70% increased risk for rerevision of the cup as a result of any reason and especially because of dislocation (RR, 2.94). The surgical incision did not influence the overall risk for rerevision (direct lateral/posterolateral: RR, 1.02) or the risk of rerevision resulting from dislocation (RR, 0.91).ConclusionsWe found no difference in the overall risk of rerevision between cemented and uncemented fixation. Liner exchange had a higher risk for rerevision when compared with cases being rerevised with a new uncemented cup.Level of EvidenceLevel II, prognostic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Cement-in-cement revision of the femoral stem

Aims Compared with primary total hip arthroplasty (THA), revision surgery can be challenging. The cement‐in‐cement femoral revision technique involves removing a femoral component from a well‐fixed femoral cement mantle and cementing a new stem into the original mantle. This technique is widely used and when carried out for the correct indications, is fast, relatively inexpensive and carries a reduced short‐term risk for the patient compared with the alternative of removing well‐fixed cement. We report the outcomes of this procedure when two commonly used femoral stems are used. Patients and Methods We identified 1179 cement‐in‐cement stem revisions involving an Exeter or a Lubinus stem reported to the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register (SHAR) between January 1999 and December 2015. Kaplan‐Meier survival analysis was performed. Results Survivorship is reported up to six years and was better in the Exeter group (91% standard deviation (sd) 2.8% versus 85% SD 5.0%) (p = 0.02). There was, however, no significant difference in the survival of the stem and risk of re‐revision for any reason (p = 0.58) and for aseptic loosening (p = 0.97), between revisions in which the Exeter stem (94% SD 2.2%; 98% SD 1.6%) was used compared with those in which the Lubinus stem (95% SD 3.2%; 98% SD 2.2%) was used. The database did not allow identification of whether a further revision was indicated for loosening of the acetabular or femoral component or both. Conclusion The cement‐in‐cement technique for revision of the femoral component gave promising results using both designs of stem, six years post‐operatively.

High proximal migration in cemented acetabular revisions operated with bone impaction grafting; 47 revision cups followed with RSA for 17 years

Background Bone impaction grafting is a biologically and mechanically appealing option in acetabular revision surgery, allowing restitution of the bone stock and restoration of the biomechanics. We analysed differences in proximal migration of the revision acetabular components when bone impaction grafting is used together with a cemented or an uncemented cup. Patients and Methods 43 patients (47 hips), revised due to acetabular loosening and judged to have less than 50% host bone-implant contact were included. The hips were randomised to either an uncemented (n = 20) or a cemented (n = 27) revision cup. Radiostereometry and radiography was performed postoperatively, at 3 and 6 months, 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 10 and 13 and 17 years postoperatively. Clinical follow-up was performed at 1, 2 and 5 years postoperatively and thereafter at the same interval as in the radiographic follow-up. Results here were no differences in the base line demographic data between the 2 groups. At the last follow-up (17 years) 14 hips (10 cemented, 4 uncemented) had been re-revised due to loosening. 3 additional cups (1 uncemented and 2 cemented) were radiographically loose. There was a higher early proximal migration in the cemented cups. Discussion Cups operated on with cement showed a higher early migration measured with RSA and also a higher number of late revisions. The reason for this is not known, but factors such as inclusion of cases with severe bone defects, use of smaller bone chips and issues related to the impaction technique might have had various degrees of influence.

Does the Risk of Rerevision Vary Between Porous Tantalum Cups and Other Cementless Designs After Revision Hip Arthroplasty

BackgroundEarlier results with porous tantalum acetabular cups in revision THA generally have been favorable. Recently there has been some evidence presented that porous tantalum cups might decrease the risk of rerevision in the setting of revision hip surgery performed owing to prosthetic joint infection (PJI). As the data supporting this assertion come from a study with a limited study population, examining this issue with a large registry approach may be enlightening.Questions/purposesBy combining results from two large, national registries, we asked: (1) Do porous tantalum cups show improved survival after revision THA compared with other cementless designs? (2) Does the use of porous tantalum cups influence survivorship when rerevision for PJI is the endpoint?MethodsA total of 2442 first-time THA revisions with porous tantalum cups and 4401 first-time revisions with other uncemented cups were included in this collaborative study between the Australian and Swedish national joint registries. The mean age of the patients was 69 years (range, 19–97 years), 3754 (55%) of the patients were women, and the mean followup for the porous tantalum and uncemented control groups were 3.0 years (SD, ± 2.1 years) and 3.4 years (SD, ± 2.3 years), respectively. Concomitant stem revision was more common in the porous tantalum group (43% versus 36%). The use of porous tantalum augments also was analyzed as a proxy for more complex acetabular reconstructions. In an attempt to further reduce selection bias, we performed subgroup analysis for primary operations attributable to osteoarthritis and first revision attributable to aseptic loosening.ResultsKaplan-Meier survivorship with rerevisison for any reason up to 7 years was comparable between the porous tantalum cup group and the uncemented cup control group (86% [95% CI, 85%–89%] and 87% [95% CI, 85%–89%], respectively; p = 0.85) and the overall survivorship up to 7 years with a second revision for PJI as the endpoint (97% [95% CI, 95%–98%] and 97% [95% CI, 96%–98%], respectively; p = 0.64). Excluding procedures where augments had been used or studying primary osteoarthritis and first revision owing to aseptic loosening subgroups did not change this result.ConclusionsImplant survival for a porous tantalum cup in first-time THA revision was similar to the survival of the uncemented cup control group. With the numbers available, no benefit in survival with rerevision for infection as the endpoint could be ascribed to the porous tantalum cup group, as has been suggested by earlier work. Further studies with acetabular bone deficiency data, greater insight into host comorbidity factors, and a longer followup are needed to corroborate or refute these results.Level of EvidenceLevel III, therapeutic study.

Trabecular metal acetabular components in primary total hip arthroplasty

Background and purpose — Trabecular metal (TM) cups have demonstrated favorable results in acetabular revision and their use in primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) is increasing. Some evidence show that TM cups might decrease periprosthetic infection (PPI) incidence. We compared the survivorship of TM cups with that of other uncemented cups in primary THA, and evaluated whether the use of TM cups is associated with a lower risk of PPI. Patients and methods — 10,113 primary THAs with TM cup and 85,596 THAs with other uncemented cups from 2 high-quality national arthroplasty registries were included. The mean follow-up times were 3.0 years for the TM cups and 3.8 years for the other uncemented cups. Results — The overall survivorship up to 8 years for TM cups and other uncemented cups was 94.4% and 96.2%, respectively (p = < 0.001). Adjusting for relevant covariates in a Cox regression model the TM cups had a persistently higher revision risk than other uncemented cups (HR =1.5, 95% CI 1.4–1.7, p = < 0.001). There was a slightly higher, though not statistically significant, revision rate for PPI in the TM group (1.2, 95% CI 1.0–1.6, p = 0.09). Interpretation — Risk of revision for any reason was higher for the TM cup than for other uncemented cups in primary THA. In contrast to our hypothesis, there was no evidence that the revision rate for PPI was lower in the TM cup patients. Regardless of the promising early and mid-term results for TM cups in hip revision arthroplasty, we would like to sound a note of caution on the increasing use of the TM design, especially in uncomplicated primary THAs, where uncemented titanium cups are considered to provide a reliable outcome.

Promising early results for trabecular metal acetabular components used at revision total hip arthroplasty: 42 acetabular revisions followed with radiostereometry in a prospective randomised trial

Aims The aim of this study was to compare the incidence of aseptic loosening after the use of a cemented acetabular component and a Trabecular Metal (TM) acetabular component (Zimmer Inc., Warsaw, Indiana) at acetabular revision with bone impaction grafting. Patients and Methods A total of 42 patients were included in the study. Patients were randomised to receive an all‐polyethylene cemented acetabular component (n = 19) or a TM component (n = 23). Radiostereometric analysis and conventional radiographic examinations were performed regularly up to two years post‐operatively or until further revision. Results The proximal migration was significantly higher in the cemented group. At two years, the median proximal migration was 1.45 mm and 0.25 mm in the cemented and TM groups, respectively (p = 0.02). One cemented component was revised due to dislocation. There were no revisions in the TM group. Conclusion Lower proximal migration in the TM group suggests that this design might be associated with a lower risk of aseptic loosening in the long term compared with an all polyethylene cemented component. Longer follow‐up is required to confirm the clinical advantages of using this component at acetabular revision.

Long-lived plasma cells in human bone marrow can be either CD19+ or CD19–

Long-lived plasma cells secreting vaccinia-specific antibodies are detected in human bone marrow >35 years after the eradication of smallpox.Long-lived plasma cells secreting vaccinia-specific antibodies are still able to express the B-lymphocyte antigen CD19.