Øystein Gøthesen

Survival rates and causes of revision in cemented primary total knee replacement: A report from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register 1994–2009

We evaluated the rates of survival and cause of revision of seven different brands of cemented primary total knee replacement (TKR) in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register during the years 1994 to 2009. Revision for any cause, including resurfacing of the patella, was the primary endpoint. Specific causes of revision were secondary outcomes. Three posterior cruciate-retaining (PCR) fixed modular-bearing TKRs, two fixed non-modular bearing PCR TKRs and two mobile-bearing posterior cruciate-sacrificing TKRs were investigated in a total of 17 782 primary TKRs. The median follow-up for the implants ranged from 1.8 to 6.9 years. Kaplan-Meier 10-year survival ranged from 89.5% to 95.3%. Coxs relative risk (RR) was calculated relative to the fixed modular-bearing Profix knee (the most frequently used TKR in Norway), and ranged from 1.1 to 2.6. The risk of revision for aseptic tibial loosening was higher in the mobile-bearing LCS Classic (RR 6.8 (95% confidence interval (CI) 3.8 to 12.1)), the LCS Complete (RR 7.7 (95% CI 4.1 to 14.4)), the fixed modular-bearing Duracon (RR 4.5 (95% CI 1.8 to 11.1)) and the fixed non-modular bearing AGC Universal TKR (RR 2.5 (95% CI 1.3 to 5.1)), compared with the Profix. These implants (except AGC Universal) also had an increased risk of revision for femoral loosening (RR 2.3 (95% CI 1.1 to 4.8), RR 3.7 (95% CI 1.6 to 8.9), and RR 3.4 (95% CI 1.1 to 11.0), respectively). These results suggest that aseptic loosening is related to design in TKR.

Short-term outcome of 1,465 computer-navigated primary total knee replacements 2005-2008 A report from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register

Background and purpose Improvement of positioning and alignment by the use of computer-assisted surgery (CAS) might improve longevity and function in total knee replacements, but there is little evidence. In this study, we evaluated the short-term results of computer-navigated knee replacements based on data from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register. Patients and methods Primary total knee replacements without patella resurfacing, reported to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register during the years 2005–2008, were evaluated. The 5 most common implants and the 3 most common navigation systems were selected. Cemented, uncemented, and hybrid knees were included. With the risk of revision for any cause as the primary endpoint and intraoperative complications and operating time as secondary outcomes, 1,465 computer-navigated knee replacements (CAS) and 8,214 conventionally operated knee replacements (CON) were compared. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and Cox regression analysis with adjustment for age, sex, prosthesis brand, fixation method, previous knee surgery, preoperative diagnosis, and ASA category were used. Results Kaplan-Meier estimated survival at 2 years was 98% (95% CI: 97.5–98.3) in the CON group and 96% (95% CI: 95.0–97.8) in the CAS group. The adjusted Cox regression analysis showed a higher risk of revision in the CAS group (RR = 1.7, 95% CI: 1.1–2.5; p = 0.02). The LCS Complete knee had a higher risk of revision with CAS than with CON (RR = 2.1, 95% CI: 1.3–3.4; p = 0.004)). The differences were not statistically significant for the other prosthesis brands. Mean operating time was 15 min longer in the CAS group. Interpretation With the introduction of computer-navigated knee replacement surgery in Norway, the short-term risk of revision has increased for computer-navigated replacement with the LCS Complete. The mechanisms of failure of these implantations should be explored in greater depth, and in this study we have not been able to draw conclusions regarding causation.

An economic model to evaluate cost-effectiveness of computer assisted knee replacement surgery in Norway

BackgroundThe use of Computer Assisted Surgery (CAS) for knee replacements is intended to improve the alignment of knee prostheses in order to reduce the number of revision operations. Is the cost effectiveness of computer assisted surgery influenced by patient volume and age?MethodsBy employing a Markov model, we analysed the cost effectiveness of computer assisted surgery versus conventional arthroplasty with respect to implant survival and operation volume in two theoretical Norwegian age cohorts. We obtained mortality and hospital cost data over a 20-year period from Norwegian registers. We presumed that the cost of an intervention would need to be below NOK 500,000 per QALY (Quality Adjusted Life Year) gained, to be considered cost effective.ResultsThe added cost of computer assisted surgery, provided this has no impact on implant survival, is NOK 1037 and NOK 1414 respectively for 60 and 75-year-olds per quality-adjusted life year at a volume of 25 prostheses per year, and NOK 128 and NOK 175 respectively at a volume of 250 prostheses per year. Sensitivity analyses showed that the 10-year implant survival in cohort 1 needs to rise from 89.8% to 90.6% at 25 prostheses per year, and from 89.8 to 89.9% at 250 prostheses per year for computer assisted surgery to be considered cost effective. In cohort 2, the required improvement is a rise from 95.1% to 95.4% at 25 prostheses per year, and from 95.10% to 95.14% at 250 prostheses per year.ConclusionsThe cost of using computer navigation for total knee replacements may be acceptable for 60-year-old as well as 75-year-old patients if the technique increases the implant survival rate just marginally, and the department has a high operation volume. A low volume department might not achieve cost-effectiveness unless computer navigation has a more significant impact on implant survival, thus may defer the investments until such data are available.

Have the Causes of Revision for Total and Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasties Changed During the Past Two Decades

BackgroundRevisions after knee arthroplasty are expected to increase, and the epidemiology of failure mechanisms is changing as new implants, technology, and surgical techniques evolve.Questions/purposes(1) Was there improvement in survival for TKA and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) when comparing two consecutive 11-year periods with similar followups in a national registry? (2) Were there changes in the causes of revision during the two times? (3) Could the changes in revision causes be attributed to patient or implant characteristics?MethodsA total of 60,623 TKAs (2426 revisions) and 7648 UKAs (725 revisions) were selected from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register and analyzed based on year of primary surgery: 1994 to 2004 (Period 1) and 2005 to 2015 (Period 2). TKAs had median followup of 3.5 years in Period 1 and 4.2 years in Period 2. Median followup for UKAs was 2.7 years in Period 1 and 4.6 years in Period 2. Of the patients included in the registry, 99.6% were accounted for at the time of analysis, whereas 0.4% had moved abroad. We used Kaplan-Meier analyses and log-rank test to investigate changes in survival. Relative risk of revision in Period 2 relative to Period 1 was calculated for each registered revision cause in a Cox regression model adjusted for age, sex, diagnosis, fixation, and patella resurfacing.ResultsFor TKAs, the 10-year Kaplan-Meier survival free from revision improved from Period 1 to Period 2 from 91% (95% CI, 90%–92%) to 94% (95% CI, 94%–95%; p < 0.001). Revisions resulting from aseptic loosening of the femoral component, polyethylene wear/breakage, patellar dislocation, and unexplained pain decreased, whereas revisions resulting from early infection increased. Patients in Period 2 were younger and more often men compared with patients in Period 1. A higher risk of revision was found for male sex (relative risk [RR], 1.1; 95% CI, 1.0–1.2; p = 0.048) and age younger than 65 years (RR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.6–1.9; p < 0.001). With UKAs, the 10-year survival free from revision was 80% (95% CI, 76%–84%) in Period 1 and 81% (95% CI, 79%–83%; p = 0.261) in Period 2. Revisions resulting from tibial aseptic loosening, polyethylene wear/breakage, and periprosthetic fractures decreased, but there were more revisions resulting from progression of osteoarthritis. In Period 2, there were more men and the average age was younger than for patients in Period 1. For UKAs, age younger than 65 years had a higher risk of revision (RR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.5–2.0; p < 0.001), whereas sex did not affect the risk of revision.ConclusionsWe found an improvement in survival free from revision for TKA in the last period, but no similar improvement for UKA, and the survivorship for UKAs remains rather dramatically lower than that observed for TKAs. The decision to perform a UKA should be made with the explicit awareness that its survivorship is substantially inferior to that of TKA; any perceived advantages of UKA should be balanced against this issue of its decreased durability.Level of EvidenceLevel III, therapeutic study.

Survivorship and relative risk of revision in computer-navigated versus conventional total knee replacement at 8-year follow-up

Background and purpose — The long-term effects of computer-assisted surgery in total knee replacement (CAS) compared to conventionally operated knee replacement (CON) are still not clear. We compared survivorship and relative risk of revision in CAS and CON based on data from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register. Patients and methods — We assessed primary total knee replacements without patellar resurfacing reported to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register from 2005 through 2014. The 5 most used implants and the 3 most common navigation systems were included. The groups (CAS, n = 3,665; CON, n = 20,019) were compared using a Cox regression analysis adjusted for age, sex, ASA category, prosthesis brand, fixation method, previous surgery, and diagnosis with the risk of revision for any reason as endpoint. Secondary outcomes were reasons for revision and effects of prosthesis brand, fixation method, age (± 65 years), and hospital volume. Results — Prosthesis survival and risk of revision were similar for CAS and CON. CAS had significantly fewer revisions due to malalignment. Otherwise, no statistically significant difference was found between the groups in analyses of secondary outcomes. Mean operating time was 13 minutes longer in CAS. Interpretation — At 8 years of follow-up, CAS and CON had similar rates of overall revision, but CAS had fewer revisions due to malalignment. According to our findings, the benefits of CAS at medium-term follow-up are limited. Further research may identify subgroups that benefit from CAS, and it should also emphasize patient-reported outcomes.

Better survival of hybrid total knee arthroplasty compared to cemented arthroplasty.

Background and purpose — There have been few comparative studies on total knee replacement (TKR) with cemented tibia and uncemented femur (hybrid TKR). Previous studies have not shown any difference in revision rate between cemented and hybrid fixation, but these studies had few hybrid prostheses. We have evaluated the outcome of hybrid TKR based on data from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register (NAR). Patients and methods — We compared 4,585 hybrid TKRs to 20,095 cemented TKRs with risk of revision for any cause as the primary endpoint. We included primary TKRs without patella resurfacing that were reported to the NAR during the years 1999–2012. To minimize the possible confounding effect of prosthesis brands, only brands that were used both as hybrids and cemented in more than 200 cases were included. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and Cox regression analysis were done with adjustment for age, sex, and preoperative diagnosis. To include death as a competing risk, cumulative incidence function estimates were calculated. Results — Estimated survival at 11 years was 94.3% (95% CI: 93.9–94.7) in the cemented TKR group and 96.3% (CI: 95.3–97.3) in the hybrid TKR group. The adjusted Cox regression analysis showed a lower risk of revision in the hybrid group (relative risk = 0.58, CI: 0.48–0.72, p < 0.001). The hybrid group included 3 brands of prostheses: LCS classic, LCS complete, and Profix. Profix hybrid TKR had lower risk of revision than cemented TKR, but the LCS classic and LCS complete did not. Kaplan-Meier estimated survival at 11 years was 96.8% (CI: 95.6–98.0) in the hybrid Profix group and 95.2% (CI: 94.6–95.8) in the cemented Profix group. Mean operating time was 17 min longer in the cemented group. Interpretation — Survivorship of the hybrid TKR at 11 years was better than that for cemented TKR, or the same, depending on the brand of prosthesis. Hybrid fixation appears to be a safe and time-efficient alternative to cemented fixation in total knee replacement surgery.

Similar migration in computer-assisted and conventional total knee arthroplasty.

Background and purpose — Computer-assisted surgery (CAS) in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has been used in recent years in the hope of improving the alignment and positioning of the implant, thereby achieving a better functional outcome and durability. However, the role of computer navigation in TKA is still under debate. We used radiostereometric analysis (RSA) in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to determine whether there are any differences in migration of the tibial component between CAS- and conventionally (CONV-) operated TKA. Patients and methods — 54 patients (CAS, n = 26; CONV, n = 28) with a mean age of 67 (56–78) years and with osteoarthritis or arthritic disease of the knee were recruited from 4 hospitals during the period 2009–2011. To estimate the mechanical stability of the tibial component, the patients were examined with RSA up to 24 months after operation. The following parameters representing tibial component micromotion were measured: 3-D vector of the prosthetic marker that moved the most, representing the magnitude of migration (maximum total point motion, MTPM); the largest negative value for y-translation (subsidence); the largest positive y-translation (lift-off); and prosthetic rotations. The precision of the RSA measurements was evaluated and migration in the 2 groups was compared. Results — Both groups had most migration within the first 3 months, but there was no statistically significant difference in the magnitude of the migration between the CAS group and the CONV group. From 3 to 24 months, the MTPM (in mm) was 0.058 and 0.103 (p = 0.1) for the CAS and CON groups, respectively, and the subsidence (in mm) was 0.005 and 0.011 (p = 0.3). Interpretation — Mean MTPM, subsidence, lift-off, and rotational movement of tibial trays were similar in CAS- and CONV-operated knees.

Increased risk of aseptic loosening for 43,525 rotating-platform vs. fixed-bearing total knee replacements: A Norwegian–Australian registry study, 2003–2014

Background and purpose — Given similar functional outcomes with mobile and fixed bearings, a difference in survivorship may favor either. This study investigated the risk of aseptic loosening for the most used subtypes of mobile-bearing rotating-platform knees, in Norway and Australia. Patients and methods — Primary TKRs reported to the Norwegian and Australian joint registries, between 2003 and 2014, were analyzed with aseptic loosening as primary end-point and all revisions as secondary end-point. We hypothesized that no difference would be found in the rate of revision between rotating-platform and the most used fixed-bearing TKRs, or between keeled and non-keeled tibia. Kaplan–Meier estimates and curves, and Cox regression relative risk estimates adjusted for age, sex, and diagnosis were used for comparison. Results — The rotating-platform TKRs had an increased risk of revision for aseptic loosening compared with the most used fixed-bearing knees, in Norway (RR =6, 95% CI 4–8) and Australia (RR =2.1, 95% CI 1.8–2.5). The risk of aseptic loosening as a reason for revision was highest in Norway compared with Australia (RR =1.7, 95% CI 1.4–2.0). The keeled tibial component had the same risk of aseptic loosening as the non-keeled tibia (Australia). Fixation method and subtypes of the tibial components had no impact on the risk of aseptic loosening in these mobile-bearing knees. Interpretation — The rotating-platform TKRs in this study appeared to have a higher risk of revision for aseptic loosening than the most used fixed-bearing TKRs.

Early aseptic loosening of a mobile-bearing total knee replacement

Background and purpose — Registry-based studies have reported an increased risk of aseptic tibial loosening for the cemented Low Contact Stress (LCS) total knee replacement compared with other cemented designs; however, the reasons for this have not been established. We made a retrieval analysis with the aim of identifying the failure mechanism. Patients and methods — We collected implants, cement, tissue, blood, and radiographs from 32 failed LCS Complete cases. Damage to the tibial baseplate and insert was assessed. Exposure to wear products was quantified in 11 cases through analysis of periprosthetic tissue and blood. Implant alignment and bone cement thickness was compared with a control group of 43 non-revised cases. Results — Loosening of the tibial baseplate was the reason for revision in 25 retrievals, occurring at the implant–cement interface in 16 cases. Polishing was observed on the lower surface of the baseplate and correlated to the level of cobalt, chromium, and zirconium in the blood. No evidence of abnormally high polyethylene wear was present. For each 1 mm increase in cement thickness the odds of failure due to aseptic loosening decreased by 61%. Greater varus alignment was associated with a shorter time to failure. The roughness, Ra, of a new LCS baseplate’s lower surface was 3.7 (SD 0.7) µm. Interpretation — Debonding of the tibial component at the implant–cement interface was the predominant cause of tibial aseptic loosening. A thin cement layer may partly explain the poor performance. Furthermore, the comparatively low tibial surface roughness and the lack of a keeled stem may have played a role in the failures observed.