Literature DB >> 25567357

Is there a difference in total knee arthroplasty risk of revision in highly crosslinked versus conventional polyethylene?

Elizabeth W Paxton1, Maria C S Inacio, Steven Kurtz, Rebecca Love, Guy Cafri, Robert S Namba.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Highly crosslinked polyethylene (HXLPE) was introduced to reduce wear and associated osteolysis in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). However, there is limited clinical evidence that HXLPE is more effective than conventional polyethylene (CPE) in TKA. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Do primary TKAs with HXLPE tibial inserts have a lower risk of revision (all-cause, aseptic, and septic) than TKAs with CPE tibial inserts? (2) In NexGen TKA (Zimmer Inc, Warsaw, IN, USA) bearings, do HXLPE tibial inserts have a lower risk of revision (all-cause, aseptic, and septic) than CPE tibial inserts? (3) In Press-Fit Condylar TKA (PFC or PFC Sigma; DePuy Inc, Warsaw, IN, USA), do HXLPE tibial inserts have a lower risk of revision (all-cause, aseptic, and septic) than procedures performed with CPE tibial inserts?
METHODS: The Kaiser Permanente Total Joint Replacement Registry was used to identify primary TKAs (N = 77,084) performed during the study period (April 2001 to December 2011) with cobalt-chromium alloy on CPE (CoCr-CPE) and CoCr-HXLPE bearings. The registry has 95% voluntary participation and less than 9% were loss to followup during the 10-year study period. A total of 60,841 (79%) had CoCr-CPE bearings, 11,048 (14%) had CoCr-HXLPE bearings, and 5195 (7%) were unknown. Specific knee implant designs (NexGen, Zimmer and PFC-Sigma, DePuy Inc) were also evaluated. These implants represented 41% (31,793) and 49% (37,457), respectively, of the 77,084 TKAs of known implant types registered during that period; implant selection was at the discretion of the attending surgeon. Descriptive statistics and marginal Cox regression models with propensity score adjustments were applied to compare risk of revision for CoCr-CPE versus CoCr-HXLPE TKA bearings.
RESULTS: At 5 years followup, cumulative incidence of revision for CoCr-CPE and CoCr-XLPE were 2.7% and 3.1%, respectively. Adjusted risks of all-cause (hazard ratio [HR], 1.05; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.86-1.29; p = 0.620), aseptic (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.77-1.32; p = 0.954), and septic revision (HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.81-1.51; p = 0.519) did not differ in patients with CoCr-XLPE bearings compared with CoCr-CPE. Within TKAs with NexGen components, the adjusted risks of all-cause (HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.86-1.51; p = 0.354), aseptic (HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.79-1.65; p = 0.493), and septic revision (HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.76-1.73; p = 518) were similar in patients with CoCr-XLPE compared with those with CoCr-CPE bearings. Finally, within the TKAs with PFC components, the adjusted risks of all-cause (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.49-1.30; p = 0.369), aseptic (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.62-1.14; p = 0.123), and septic revision (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.51-1.85; p = 0.929) were also similar in patients with CoCr-XLPE compared with those with CoCr-CPE bearings.
CONCLUSIONS: In this large study, we did not find differences in risk of revision for CoCr-HXLPE compared with CoCr-CPE bearings at 5 years followup. In selecting HXLPE in TKA, clinicians should consider the increased cost and lack of available evidence of performance for greater than 10 years followup. Future studies are necessary to evaluate longitudinal outcomes of CoCr-HXLPE versus conventional TKA bearings. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25567357      PMCID: PMC4317427          DOI: 10.1007/s11999-014-4046-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res        ISSN: 0009-921X            Impact factor:   4.176


  18 in total

1.  Fatigue crack propagation resistance of highly crosslinked polyethylene.

Authors:  Letitia Bradford; David Baker; Michael D Ries; Lisa A Pruitt
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  Knee-simulator testing of conventional and cross-linked polyethylene tibial inserts.

Authors:  Orhun K Muratoglu; Charles R Bragdon; Murali Jasty; Daniel O O'Connor; Rebecca S Von Knoch; William H Harris
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 4.757

3.  Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030.

Authors:  Steven Kurtz; Kevin Ong; Edmund Lau; Fionna Mowat; Michael Halpern
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 5.284

4.  Marginal mean weighting through stratification: a generalized method for evaluating multivalued and multiple treatments with nonexperimental data.

Authors:  Guanglei Hong
Journal:  Psychol Methods       Date:  2011-08-15

5.  ASA physical status classifications: a study of consistency of ratings.

Authors:  W D Owens; J A Felts; E L Spitznagel
Journal:  Anesthesiology       Date:  1978-10       Impact factor: 7.892

6.  Simulated normal gait wear testing of a highly cross-linked polyethylene tibial insert.

Authors:  Orhun K Muratoglu; Harry E Rubash; Charles R Bragdon; Brian R Burroughs; Anna Huang; William H Harris
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 4.757

7.  Results at a minimum of 10 years of follow-up for AMS and PerFix HA-coated cementless total hip arthroplasty: impact of cross-linked polyethylene on implant longevity.

Authors:  Yasuharu Nakashima; Taishi Sato; Takuaki Yamamoto; Goro Motomura; Masanobu Ohishi; Satoshi Hamai; Mio Akiyama; Masanobu Hirata; Daisuke Hara; Yukihide Iwamoto
Journal:  J Orthop Sci       Date:  2013-08-21       Impact factor: 1.601

8.  Kaiser Permanente implant registries benefit patient safety, quality improvement, cost-effectiveness.

Authors:  Elizabeth W Paxton; Mary-Lou Kiley; Rebecca Love; Thomas C Barber; Tadashi T Funahashi; Maria C S Inacio
Journal:  Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf       Date:  2013-06

9.  The Kaiser Permanente implant registries: effect on patient safety, quality improvement, cost effectiveness, and research opportunities.

Authors:  Elizabeth W Paxton; Maria Cs Inacio; Mary-Lou Kiley
Journal:  Perm J       Date:  2012

10.  Alternative bearings in total knee arthroplasty: risk of early revision compared to traditional bearings: an analysis of 62,177 primary cases.

Authors:  Maria C S Inacio; Guy Cafri; Elizabeth W Paxton; Steven M Kurtz; Robert S Namba
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2013-03-14       Impact factor: 3.717

View more
  3 in total

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

Authors:  Gro S Dyrhovden; Stein Håkon L Lygre; Mona Badawy; Øystein Gøthesen; Ove Furnes
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2017-03-15       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 2.  Application of a Causal Discovery Algorithm to the Analysis of Arthroplasty Registry Data.

Authors:  Camden Cheek; Huiyong Zheng; Brian R Hallstrom; Richard E Hughes
Journal:  Biomed Eng Comput Biol       Date:  2018-02-22

3.  A retrieval analysis perspective on revision for infection.

Authors:  Michael A Kokko; Matthew P Abdel; Daniel J Berry; Rebecca D Butler; Douglas W Van Citters
Journal:  Arthroplast Today       Date:  2019-08-06
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.