AimsUncemented implants are now commonly used at reimplantation of a two-stage revision total hip arthoplasty (THA) following periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). However, there is a paucity of data on the performance of the most commonly used uncemented femoral implants – modular fluted tapered (MFT) femoral components – in this setting. This study evaluated implant survival, radiological results, and clinical outcomes in a large cohort of reimplantation THAs using MFT components.MethodsWe identified 236 reimplantation THAs from a single tertiary care academic institution from September 2000 to September 2020. Two designs of MFT femoral components were used as part of an established two-stage exchange protocol for the treatment of PJI. Mean age at reimplantation was 65 years (SD 11), mean BMI was 32 kg/m2 (SD 7), and 46% (n = 109) were female. Mean follow-up was seven years (SD 4). A competing risk model accounting for death was used.ResultsThe 15-year cumulative incidence of any revision was 24%. There were 48 revisions, with the most common reasons being dislocation (n = 25) and infection (n = 16). The 15-year cumulative incidence of any reoperation was 28%. Only 13 revisions involved the fluted tapered component (FTC), for a 15-year cumulative incidence of any FTC revision of 8%. Only two FTCs were revised for aseptic loosening, resulting in a 15-year cumulative incidence of FTC revision for aseptic loosening of 1%. Stem subsidence ≥ 5 mm occurred in 2% of unrevised cases. All stems were radiologically stable at most recent follow-up. Mean Harris Hip Score was 69 (SD 20) at most recent follow-up.ConclusionThis series demonstrated that MFT components were durable and reliable in the setting of two-stage reimplantation THA for infection. While the incidence of aseptic loosening was very low, the incidence of any revision was 24% at 15 years, primarily due to dislocation and recurrent PJI.Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(5 Supple B):125–132.
Efficacy of ADIPOR1 and ADIPOR2 peptide‐agonist AdipoRon in preventing contracture in a rabbit model of arthrofibrosis
Journal of Orthopaedic Research | April 12, 2024 | Volume: 42 | Issue: 9 | Pages: 1916-1922
AbstractAdipoRon is an adiponectin receptor 1, 2 (ADIPOR1 and ADIPOR2) agonist with potential antifibrotic effects. Whether AdipoRon can mitigate joint stiffness in a rabbit model of arthrofibrosis is unknown. We examined the efficacy of intravenous (IV) AdipoRon at mitigating contracture in a rabbit model of knee arthrofibrosis. Fifty‐six female New Zealand White rabbits were divided into three dosing groups: vehicle (dimethyl sulfoxide, DMSO), 2.5 mg/kg AdipoRon, and 5 mg/kg AdipoRon. AdipoRon, in DMSO, was administered IV preoperatively and for 5 days postoperatively (30 rabbits, Aim 1). AdipoRon was again dosed similarly after Kirschner wire (K‐wire) removal at 8 weeks (26 rabbits; Aim 2). The primary outcome of joint passive extension angle (PEA,°) was measured at 8, 10, 12, 16, and 24 weeks following index surgery. At 24 weeks, rabbits were euthanized and limbs were harvested to measure posterior capsular stiffness (N cm/°). In Aim 1, the 5 mg/kg treated rabbits had a significant increase in PEA when compared to controls at 16‐week (p < 0.05). In Aim 2, the 5 mg/kg treated rabbits had a significant increase in PEA when compared to controls at 10‐week (p < 0.05). In both aims, no significant differences were observed at later time points. Capsular stiffness was no different in any group. We are the first to report the efficacy of IV AdipoRon in a rabbit model of arthrofibrosis. We identified a significant dose‐dependent decrease in joint PEA at early time points; however, no differences were observed between groups at later time points. Clinical Significance: The present investigation provided the first assessment of AdipoRon's efficacy in mitigating knee stiffness in the current gold standard rabbit model of arthrofibrosis. Results of this investigation provided further evidence as to the potential role of AdipoRon as a preventative for arthrofibrosis in large mammals.
Cemented dual-mobility constructs in uncemented revision acetabular components
The Bone & Joint Journal | April 1, 2024 | Volume: 106-B | Issue: 4 | Pages: 352-358
AimsDislocation remains a leading cause of failure following revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). While dual-mobility (DM) bearings have been shown to mitigate this risk, options are limited when retaining or implanting an uncemented shell without modular DM options. In these circumstances, a monoblock DM cup, designed for cementing, can be cemented into an uncemented acetabular shell. The goal of this study was to describe the implant survival, complications, and radiological outcomes of this construct.MethodsWe identified 64 patients (65 hips) who had a single-design cemented DM cup cemented into an uncemented acetabular shell during revision THA between 2018 and 2020 at our institution. Cups were cemented into either uncemented cups designed for liner cementing (n = 48; 74%) or retained (n = 17; 26%) acetabular components. Median outer head diameter was 42 mm. Mean age was 69 years (SD 11), mean BMI was 32 kg/m2 (SD 8), and 52% (n = 34) were female. Survival was assessed using Kaplan-Meier methods. Mean follow-up was two years (SD 0.97).ResultsThere were nine cemented DM cup revisions: three for periprosthetic joint infection, three for acetabular aseptic loosening from bone, two for dislocation, and one for a broken cup-cage construct. The two-year survivals free of aseptic DM revision and dislocation were both 92%. There were five postoperative dislocations, all in patients with prior dislocation or abductor deficiency. On radiological review, the DM cup remained well-fixed at the cemented interface in all but one case.ConclusionWhile dislocation was not eliminated in this series of complex revision THAs, this technique allowed for maximization of femoral head diameter and optimization of effective acetabular component position during cementing. Of note, there was only one failure at the cemented interface.Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(4):352–358.
Do breast cancer patients have increased risk of complications after primary total hip and total knee arthroplasty?
The Bone & Joint Journal | April 1, 2024 | Volume: 106-B | Issue: 4 | Pages: 365-371
AimsBreast cancer survivors have known risk factors that might influence the results of total hip arthroplasty (THA) or total knee arthroplasty (TKA). This study evaluated clinical outcomes of patients with breast cancer history after primary THA and TKA.MethodsOur total joint registry identified patients with breast cancer history undergoing primary THA (n = 423) and TKA (n = 540). Patients were matched 1:1 based upon age, sex, BMI, procedure (hip or knee), and surgical year to non-breast cancer controls. Mortality, implant survival, and complications were assessed via Kaplan-Meier methods. Clinical outcomes were evaluated via Harris Hip Scores (HHSs) or Knee Society Scores (KSSs). Mean follow-up was six years (2 to 15).ResultsBreast cancer patient survival at five years was 92% (95% confidence interval (CI) 89% to 95%) after THA and 94% (95% CI 92% to 97%) after TKA. Breast and non-breast cancer patients had similar five-year implant survival free of any reoperation or revision after THA (p ≥ 0.412) and TKA (p ≥ 0.271). Breast cancer patients demonstrated significantly lower survival free of any complications after THA (91% vs 96%, respectively; hazard ratio = 2 (95% CI 1.1 to 3.4); p = 0.017). Specifically, the rate of intraoperative fracture was 2.4% vs 1.4%, and venous thromboembolism (VTE) was 1.4% and 0.5% for breast cancer and controls, respectively, after THA. No significant difference was noted in any complications after TKA (p ≥ 0.323). Both breast and non-breast cancer patients experienced similar improvements in HHSs (p = 0.514) and KSSs (p = 0.132).ConclusionBreast cancer survivors did not have a significantly increased risk of mortality or reoperation after primary THA and TKA. However, there was a two-fold increased risk of complications after THA, including intraoperative fracture and VTE.Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(4):365–371.
The International Hip Society Supplement Part I: current controversies in total hip arthroplasty
The Bone & Joint Journal | March 1, 2024 | Volume: 106-B | Issue: 3 Supple A | Pages: 1-2
The evaluation, classification, and treatment of significant bone loss after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) continue to be a complex and debated topic in revision TKA (rTKA). Despite the introduction of new evidence and innovative technologies aimed at addressing the approach and care of severe bone loss in rTKA, there is no single document that systematically incorporates these newer surgical approaches. Therefore, a comprehensive review of the treatment of severe bone loss in rTKA is necessary. The Stavros Niarchos Foundation Complex Joint Reconstruction Center Hospital for Special Surgery, dedicated to clinical care and research primarily in revision hip and knee replacement, convened a Management of Bone Loss in Revision TKA symposium on June 24, 2022. At this meeting, the 42 international invited experts were divided into groups; each group was assigned to discuss questions related to 1 of the 4 topics: (1) assessing preoperative workup and imaging, anticipated bone loss, classification system, and implant surveillance; (2) achieving durable fixation in the setting of significant bone loss in revision TKA; (3) managing patellar bone loss and the extensor mechanism in cases of severe bone loss; and (4) considering the use of complex modular replacement systems: hinges, distal femoral, and proximal tibial replacements. Each group came to consensus, when possible, based on an extensive literature review and interactive discussion on their group topic. This document reviews each these 4 areas, the consensus of each group, and directions for future research.
AdipoRon reduces TGFβ1‐mediated collagen deposition in vitro and alleviates knee stiffness in vivo
Journal of Cellular Physiology | December 27, 2023 | Volume: 239 | Issue: 2 | Pages: No page available
AbstractArthrofibrosis, which causes joint motion restrictions, is a common complication following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Key features associated with arthrofibrosis include myofibroblast activation, knee stiffness, and excessive scar tissue formation. We previously demonstrated that adiponectin levels are suppressed within the knee tissues of patients affected by arthrofibrosis and showed that AdipoRon, an adiponectin receptor agonist, exhibited anti‐fibrotic properties in human mesenchymal stem cells. In this study, the therapeutic potential of AdipoRon was evaluated on TGFβ1‐mediated myofibroblast differentiation of primary human knee fibroblasts and in a mouse model of knee stiffness. Picrosirius red staining revealed that AdipoRon reduced TGFβ1‐induced collagen deposition in primary knee fibroblasts derived from patients undergoing primary TKA and revision TKA for arthrofibrosis. AdipoRon also reduced mRNA and protein levels of ACTA2, a key myofibroblast marker. RNA‐seq analysis corroborated the anti‐myofibrogenic effects of AdipoRon. In our knee stiffness mouse model, 6 weeks of knee immobilization, to induce a knee contracture, in conjunction with daily vehicle (DMSO) or AdipoRon (1, 5, and 25 mg/kg) via intraperitoneal injections were well tolerated based on animal behavior and weight measurements. Biomechanical testing demonstrated that passive extension angles (PEAs) of experimental knees were similar between vehicle and AdipoRon treatment groups in mice evaluated immediately following immobilization. Interestingly, relative to vehicle‐treated mice, 5 mg/kg AdipoRon therapy improved the PEA of the experimental knees in mice that underwent 4 weeks of knee remobilization following the immobilization and therapy. Together, these studies revealed that AdipoRon may be an effective therapeutic modality for arthrofibrosis.
Whole Blood Metal Levels in the Setting of an Oncologic Endoprosthesis: Is There Cause for Concern?
Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research | August 21, 2023 | Volume: 482 | Issue: 2 | Pages: 352-358
Abstract Background Massive modular endoprostheses have become a primary means of reconstruction after oncologic resection of a lower extremity tumor. These implants are commonly made with cobalt-chromium alloys that can undergo wear and corrosion, releasing cobalt and chromium ions into the surrounding tissue and blood. However, there are few studies about the blood metal levels in these patients. Question/purpose What is the whole blood cobalt and chromium ion level in patients with massive modular endoprostheses? Methods We performed a cross-sectional study of our total joints registry to identify patients with a history of an endoprosthetic reconstruction performed at our institution. Patients who were alive at the time of our review in addition to those undergoing an endoprosthetic reconstruction after an oncologic resection were included. Whole blood samples were obtained from 27 (14 male and 13 female) patients with a history of a lower extremity oncologic endoprosthesis. The median time from surgery to blood collection was 8 years (range 6 months to 32 years). Blood samples were collected and stored in metal-free ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid tubes. Samples were analyzed on an inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometer in an International Organization for Standardization seven-class clean room using polytetrafluoroethylene-coated instruments to reduce the risk of metal contamination. The analytical measuring range was 1 to 200 ng/mL for chromium and cobalt. Cobalt and chromium levels were considered elevated when the blood level was ≥ 1 ppb. Results Cobalt levels were elevated in 59% (16 of 27) of patients, and chromium levels were elevated in 26% (seven of 27). In patients with elevated metal ion values, 15 of 17 patients had a reconstruction using a Stryker/Howmedica Global Modular Replacement System implant. Conclusion Blood metal levels were elevated in patients who received reconstructions using modular oncology endoprostheses Future work is needed to establish appropriate follow-up routines and determine whether and when systemic complications occur because of elevated metal levels and how to potentially address these elevated levels when complications occur. Prospective and retrospective collaboration between multiple centers and specialty societies will be necessary to address these unknown questions in this potentially vulnerable patient group. Level of Evidence Level IV, therapeutic study.
Extended Trochanteric Osteotomy in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty
JBJS Essential Surgical Techniques | August 10, 2023 | Volume: 13 | Issue: 3 | Pages: No page available
Background: Removal of well-fixed femoral components during revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) can be difficult and time-consuming 1 , leading to numerous complications, such as femoral perforation, bone loss, and fracture. Extended trochanteric osteotomies (ETOs), which provide wide exposure and direct access to the femoral canal under controlled conditions, have become a popular method to circumvent these challenges. ETOs were popularized by Wagner (i.e., the anterior-based osteotomy), and later modified by Paprosky (i.e., the lateral-based osteotomy) 2 . Description: The decision to utilize the laterally based Paprosky ETO versus the anteriorly based Wagner ETO is primarily based on surgeon preference, the location and type of in situ implants, and the osseous anatomy. Typically, a laterally based ETO is most facile in conjunction with a posterior approach and an anteriorly based ETO is most commonly paired with a lateral or anterolateral approach. Attention must be paid to maintaining vascularity to the osteotomy fragment, including minimizing stripping of the vastus lateralis from the osteotomy fragment and maintaining abductor attachments to the osteotomy fragment. When utilizing a laterally based ETO, the posterior border of the vastus lateralis must be carefully elevated to provide exposure for performance of the osteotomy. When an anteriorly based osteotomy is performed, the surgeon may instead extend the abductor tenotomy proximally with use of a longitudinal split of the vastus lateralis distally, which helps to keep the anterior and posterior sleeves of soft tissue in continuity. In either approach, dissection of the vastus lateralis involves managing several large vascular perforators. We prefer performing careful blunt dissection to identify the perforators and prophylactically controlling them, with ligation of large vessels and electrocautery of smaller vessels. Vascular clips are also available in case difficult-to-control bleeding is encountered. In general, an oscillating saw (with preference for a thin blade) is utilized to complete the posterior longitudinal limb of the ETO, extending approximately 12 to 16 cm distally from the tip of the greater trochanter. Although a 12 to 16-cm zone is required to maintain maximum vascularity to the osteotomized fragment, the osteotomy length must ultimately be determined by (1) the length of the femoral component to be removed; (2) the presence of distal bone ingrowth, ongrowth, or cement; and (3) the presence of distal hardware or stemmed knee components. A smaller oscillating saw is then utilized to complete the transverse limb at the previously identified distal extent. A high-speed pencil-tip burr is utilized to complete the corners of the osteotomy in a rounded configuration, and a combination of saws and pencil-tip burrs is utilized to create partial proximal and distal anterior longitudinal limbs of the osteotomy to the extent allowed by the soft-tissue attachments. The anterior longitudinal limb may be further weakened in a controlled fashion with use of serial drill holes. The anterior longitudinal limb then undergoes controlled fracture by placement of 2 to 4 broad straight osteotomes in the posterior longitudinal limb. These osteotomes are carefully levered anteriorly in unison with a gentle, steady force. After the ETO is completed, intramedullary prostheses, hardware, and cement are removed; the acetabulum is addressed as needed; and a final femoral stem is implanted, if appropriate. After completion of the osteotomy, the osteotomized fragment must be retracted gently, with care taken to avoid a fracture and maintain vascularity. To this end, debridement of the endosteum of the osteotomized fragment, including any cement removal, should be avoided until the end of the procedure, when the osteotomy is ready to be closed. Our preferred method for closure is to place 1 prophylactic cable 1 cm distal to the osteotomy, 1 to 2 cables along the diaphyseal segment of the osteotomy, and 1 Luque wire above the less trochanter. A Luque wire is our specific choice for the location above the lesser trochanter because it sits in the effective joint space; however, the use of Luque wires distal to the lesser trochanter is also acceptable. A strut allograft or locking plate can be utilized to reinforce the osteotomy in rare cases or to bridge interprosthetic stress risers. Trochanteric implants are typically avoided because of the low rate of clinically relevant trochanteric migration with this closure technique and because of the high rate of symptomatic implants with trochanteric claws or plates. Alternatives: An alternative osteotomy of similar exposure is the transfemoral osteotomy. Additionally, a variety of non-extended trochanteric osteotomies, such as trochanteric slide osteotomies, offer more limited exposure. Rationale: Femoral surgical exposure for revision THA can be aided by performing transfemoral osteotomies, but these provide less precise control of the separate proximal femoral osteotomized segment(s), and healing and fixation can be less reliable. Less invasive osteotomies such as non-extended trochanteric osteotomies typically do not provide adequate exposure in challenging cases for which ETO is being considered. Expected Outcomes: ETOs have high union rates, and notable trochanteric migration is infrequent. The most common complications are fracture of the osteotomy fragment intraoperatively or postoperatively. Radiographic and clinical union is achieved in 98% of patients. The mean proximal trochanteric osteotomy fragment migration prior to union is 3 mm. ETO fragment migration of >1 cm occurs in just 7% of hips. Postoperative greater trochanter fractures occur in 9% of hips. The 10-year survivorship free of revision for aseptic femoral loosening, free of femoral or acetabular component removal or revision for any reason, and free of reoperation for any reason is 97%, 91%, and 82%, respectively 3 . Important Tips: Attention should be paid to patient anatomy, deformity, surgical approach, and implant type when choosing to perform a laterally based Paprosky or anteriorly based Wagner ETO. Appropriate length of the posterior longitudinal limb of the ETO is approximately 12 to 16 cm distally from the tip of the greater trochanter. Attention must be paid to maintaining vascularity to the osteotomy fragment, including minimizing stripping of the vastus lateralis from the osteotomy fragment and maintaining abductor attachments to the osteotomy fragment. A high-speed pencil-tip burr should be utilized to complete the corners of the osteotomy in a rounded configuration in order to avoid stress risers. The anterior longitudinal limb is completed by controlled fracture of the remaining intervening segment in order to maintain vastus lateralis attachments and vascular supply to the osteotomy fragment. The ETO is closed with use of cerclage cables and/or double-stranded Luque wires, typically utilizing a total of 3 to 4 in order to obtain secure fixation without compromising local biology. Acronyms and Abbreviations: MFT = modular fluted tapered
Contemporary outcomes of primary total hip arthroplasty in patients with inflammatory arthritis
The Bone & Joint Journal | July 1, 2023 | Volume: 105-B | Issue: 7 | Pages: 768-774
AimsContemporary outcomes of primary total hip arthroplasties (THAs) with highly cross-linked polyethylene (HXLPE) liners in patients with inflammatory arthritis have not been well studied. This study examined the implant survivorship, complications, radiological results, and clinical outcomes of THA in patients with inflammatory arthritis.MethodsWe identified 418 hips (350 patients) with a primary diagnosis of inflammatory arthritis who underwent primary THA with HXLPE liners from January 2000 to December 2017. Of these hips, 68% had rheumatoid arthritis (n = 286), 13% ankylosing spondylitis (n = 53), 7% juvenile rheumatoid arthritis (n = 29), 6% psoriatic arthritis (n = 24), 5% systemic lupus erythematosus (n = 23), and 1% scleroderma (n = 3). Mean age was 58 years (SD 14.8), 66.3% were female (n = 277), and mean BMI was 29 kg/m2 (SD 7). Uncemented femoral components were used in 77% of cases (n = 320). Uncemented acetabular components were used in all patients. Competing risk analysis was used accounting for death. Mean follow-up was 4.5 years (2 to 18).ResultsThe ten-year cumulative incidence of any revision was 3%, and was highest in psoriatic arthritis patients (16%). The most common indications for the 15 revisions were dislocations (n = 8) and periprosthetic joint infections (PJI; n = 4, all on disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs)). The ten-year cumulative incidence of reoperation was 6.1%, with the most common indications being wound infections (six cases, four on DMARDs) and postoperative periprosthetic femur fractures (two cases, both uncemented femoral components). The ten-year cumulative incidence of complications not requiring reoperation was 13.1%, with the most common being intraoperative periprosthetic femur fracture (15 cases, 14 uncemented femoral components; p = 0.13). Radiological evidence of early femoral component subsidence was observed in six cases (all uncemented). Only one femoral component ultimately developed aseptic loosening. Harris Hip Scores substantially improved (p < 0.001).ConclusionContemporary primary THAs with HXLPE in patients with inflammatory arthritis had excellent survivorship and good functional outcomes regardless of fixation method. Dislocation, PJI, and periprosthetic fracture were the most common complications in this cohort with inflammatory arthritis.Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(7):768–774.