Peter L Lewis1,2, Francois Tudor3, Michelle Lorimer1,4, John McKie5, Eric Bohm6, Otto Robertsson7, Keijo T Makela8,9, Jaason Haapakoski9, Ove Furnes10,11, Christoffer Bartz-Johannessen10, Rob G H H Nelissen12,13, Liza N Van Steenbergen13, Donald C Fithian14, Heather A Prentice14. 1. P. L. Lewis, M. Lorimer, Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR), Adelaide, Australia. 2. P. L. Lewis, Lund University, Faculty of Medicine, Clinical Sciences Lund, Dept. of Orthopedics, Lund, Sweden. 3. F. Tudor, Gold Coast University Hospital, Queensland, Australia. 4. M. Lorimer, South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute (SAHMRI), Adelaide, Australia. 5. J. McKie, New Zealand Joint Registry, Christchurch, New Zealand. 6. E. Bohm, Canadian Joint Replacement Registry, Ottawa, Canada. 7. O. Robertsson, Lund University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Clinical Sciences, Orthopedics, Lund, Sweden, The Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Register (SKAR), Lund, Sweden. 8. K. T. Makela, Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland. 9. K. T. Makela, J. Haapakoski, Finnish Arthroplasty Register, Helsinki, Finland. 10. O. Furnes, C. Bartz-Johannessen, The Norwegian Arthroplasty Register, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway. 11. O. Furnes, Department of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway. 12. R. G. H. H. Nelissen, Department of Orthopaedics, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands. 13. R. G. H. H. Nelissen, L. N. Van Steenbergen, Dutch Arthroplasty Register, s'-Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands. 14. D. C. Fithian, H. A. Prentice, Surgical Outcomes and Analysis, Kaiser Permanente, San Diego, CA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patellofemoral arthroplasty (PFA) is one option for the treatment of isolated patellofemoral osteoarthritis, but there are limited data regarding the procedure and results. Because isolated patellofemoral arthritis is relatively uncommon, available case series generally are small, and even within national registries, sample sizes are limited. Combining data from multiple registries may aid in assessing worldwide PFA usage and survivorship. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We combined and compared data from multiple large arthroplasty registries worldwide to ask: (1) What proportion of patients undergoing primary knee arthroplasty have PFA? (2) What are the patient and prosthesis characteristics associated with PFA in common practice, as reflected in registries? (3) What is the survivorship free from revision of PFA and what are the reasons for and types of revisions? METHODS: Data were provided by eight registries that are members of the International Society of Arthroplasty Registries (ISAR) who agreed to share aggregate data: Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Sweden, Finland, Norway, the Netherlands, and the United States. De-identified data were obtained for PFA performed from either the beginning of year 2000, or the earliest recorded implantation date after that in each individual registry when PFA data collection commenced, up to December 31, 2016. This included patient demographics, implant use, all-cause revision rate (determined by cumulative percent revision [CPR]), and reasons for and type of revision. RESULTS: During the data collection period, 6784 PFAs were performed in the eight countries. PFAs comprised less than 1% of primary knee replacements in all registries. Patient demographics were comparable in all countries. Patients were generally more likely to be women than men, and the mean age ranged from 50 years to 60 years. All registries showed a high rate of revision for PFA. The 5-year CPR for any reason ranged from 8.0% (95% CI 4.5 to 11.5) in Norway to 18.1% (95% CI 15.5 to 20.7) in the Netherlands. The most common reason for revision across all countries was disease progression (42%, 434 of 1034). Most PFAs (83%, 810 of 980) were revised to a TKA. CONCLUSIONS: The revision risk of PFA in all registries surveyed was more than three times higher than the reported revision risk of TKA at the same times. The survivorship of PFA is similar to that of the no-longer-used procedure of metal-on-metal conventional hip replacement. Although there may be potential functional benefits from PFA, these findings of consistent and alarmingly high rates of revision should create concern, particularly as this procedure is often used in younger patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.
BACKGROUND: Patellofemoral arthroplasty (PFA) is one option for the treatment of isolated patellofemoral osteoarthritis, but there are limited data regarding the procedure and results. Because isolated patellofemoral arthritis is relatively uncommon, available case series generally are small, and even within national registries, sample sizes are limited. Combining data from multiple registries may aid in assessing worldwide PFA usage and survivorship. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We combined and compared data from multiple large arthroplasty registries worldwide to ask: (1) What proportion of patients undergoing primary knee arthroplasty have PFA? (2) What are the patient and prosthesis characteristics associated with PFA in common practice, as reflected in registries? (3) What is the survivorship free from revision of PFA and what are the reasons for and types of revisions? METHODS: Data were provided by eight registries that are members of the International Society of Arthroplasty Registries (ISAR) who agreed to share aggregate data: Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Sweden, Finland, Norway, the Netherlands, and the United States. De-identified data were obtained for PFA performed from either the beginning of year 2000, or the earliest recorded implantation date after that in each individual registry when PFA data collection commenced, up to December 31, 2016. This included patient demographics, implant use, all-cause revision rate (determined by cumulative percent revision [CPR]), and reasons for and type of revision. RESULTS: During the data collection period, 6784 PFAs were performed in the eight countries. PFAs comprised less than 1% of primary knee replacements in all registries. Patient demographics were comparable in all countries. Patients were generally more likely to be women than men, and the mean age ranged from 50 years to 60 years. All registries showed a high rate of revision for PFA. The 5-year CPR for any reason ranged from 8.0% (95% CI 4.5 to 11.5) in Norway to 18.1% (95% CI 15.5 to 20.7) in the Netherlands. The most common reason for revision across all countries was disease progression (42%, 434 of 1034). Most PFAs (83%, 810 of 980) were revised to a TKA. CONCLUSIONS: The revision risk of PFA in all registries surveyed was more than three times higher than the reported revision risk of TKA at the same times. The survivorship of PFA is similar to that of the no-longer-used procedure of metal-on-metal conventional hip replacement. Although there may be potential functional benefits from PFA, these findings of consistent and alarmingly high rates of revision should create concern, particularly as this procedure is often used in younger patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.
Authors: Anders Odgaard; Frank Madsen; Per Wagner Kristensen; Andreas Kappel; Jesper Fabrin Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2018-01 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: N E Lankhorst; J Damen; E H Oei; J A N Verhaar; M Kloppenburg; S M A Bierma-Zeinstra; M van Middelkoop Journal: Osteoarthritis Cartilage Date: 2016-12-09 Impact factor: 6.576
Authors: Birgitte Espehaug; Ove Furnes; Leif I Havelin; Lars B Engesaeter; Stein E Vollset; Ola Kindseth Journal: Acta Orthop Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 3.717
Authors: Lina Holm Ingelsrud; J Mark Wilkinson; Soren Overgaard; Ola Rolfson; Brian Hallstrom; Ronald A Navarro; Michael Terner; Sunita Karmakar-Hore; Greg Webster; Luke Slawomirski; Adrian Sayers; Candan Kendir; Katherine de Bienassis; Niek Klazinga; Annette W Dahl; Eric Bohm Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2022-07-08 Impact factor: 4.755
Authors: John E Farey; James Masters; Alana R Cuthbert; Pernille Iversen; Liza N van Steenbergen; Heather A Prentice; Sam Adie; Adrian Sayers; Michael R Whitehouse; Elizabeth W Paxton; Matthew L Costa; Søren Overgaard; Cecilia Rogmark; Ola Rolfson; Ian A Harris Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2022-06-16 Impact factor: 4.755
Authors: Anders Odgaard; Andreas Kappel; Frank Madsen; Per Wagner Kristensen; Snorre Stephensen; Amir Pasha Attarzadeh Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2022-03-21 Impact factor: 4.755
Authors: Anirudh K Gowd; Alexander E Weimer; Danielle E Rider; Edward C Beck; Avinesh Agarwalla; Lisa K O'Brien; Michael J Alaia; Cristin M Ferguson; Brian R Waterman Journal: Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil Date: 2021-06-14
Authors: Matthias J Feucht; Patricia M Lutz; Conrad Ketzer; Marco C Rupp; Matthias Cotic; Andreas B Imhoff; Jonas Pogorzelski Journal: Arch Orthop Trauma Surg Date: 2020-10-30 Impact factor: 3.067