Risk of Revision for Fixed Versus Mobile-Bearing Primary Total Knee Replacements

Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Southern California Permanente Medical Group, Kaiser Permanente Orange County, 6670 Alton Parkway, Irvine, CA 92618.
The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (Impact Factor: 5.28). 11/2012; 94(21):1929-35. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.K.01363
Source: PubMed


Mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty prostheses were developed to reduce wear and revision rates; however, these benefits remain unproven. The purposes of this study were to compare the short-term survivorship and to determine risk factors for revision of mobile-bearing and fixed-bearing total knee replacements.
A prospective cohort study of primary total knee arthroplasties performed from 2001 to 2009 was conducted with use of a community total joint replacement registry. Patient characteristics and procedure details were identified. Cox regression models were used. Bearing type was investigated as a risk factor for revision while adjusted for other risk factors such as age, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, body mass index, sex, race, diagnosis, bilateral procedures, cruciate-retaining versus posterior-stabilized components, surgical approach, fixation, patellar resurfacing, hospital and surgeon volumes, and fellowship training.
The study cohort consisted of 47,339 total knee arthroplasties, with 62.6% of the procedures in women. Fixed bearings were used in 41,908 knees (88.5%) and mobile bearings in 4830 (10.2%). Rotating-platform designs were used in all mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasties (3112 had a Rotating-Platform Press-Fit Condylar posterior-stabilized design; 1053, a Low Contact Stress [LCS] design; and 665, a Rotating-Platform Press-Fit Condylar cruciate-retaining design). Patients who received fixed-bearing total knee arthroplasty systems were older (mean age, 68.1 years) than those who received mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty systems (mean age, 62.2 years); the difference was significant (p < 0.001). Overall, 515 knees (1.1%) were revised for reasons other than infection. The survival rate was 97.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 97.4% to 98.0%) at 6.7 years. The adjusted risk of aseptic revision for the LCS total knee replacements was 2.01 times (95% CI, 1.41 to 2.86) higher than that for fixed-bearing total knee replacements (p < 0.001).There was no significant revision risk for the other mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty systems. There was no association with surgeon and hospital case volumes and the risk of revision total knee arthroplasty.
Our study suggests the benefit of potential long-term wear reduction with the LCS implant may not be realized in a community-based setting, where a variety of surgical skills, surgical experience, and diverse patient demographic factors may affect early outcomes.
Therapeutic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

6 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Infection about a megaprosthesis is a dreaded complication. Treatment options vary from débridement alone to staged revisions, arthrodesis, and amputation. Indications for how to treat this complication are unclear. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We therefore determined (1) the incidence of perimegaprosthetic infections, (2) the methods of treatment, (3) the number of patients who failed their original treatment plan, and (4) the characteristics of the infection. METHODS: We retrospectively identified 291 patients who had megaprostheses implanted between 2001 and 2011 and identified all those surgically treated for a perimegaprosthetic infection during that time. We defined a treatment failure as any unplanned reoperation or death due to uncontrolled infection. All patients with failure had a minimum followup of 1 year (mean, 3.3 years; range, 1-8 years). RESULTS: Of the 291 patients, 31 (11%) had subsequent infections. Surgical management varied among irrigation and débridement (n = 15), single-stage revisions (n = 11), two-stage revisions (n = 4), and amputations (n = 1). Sixteen patients failed their original treatment plan: 13 required additional surgery and three died. Infections were mostly chronic and single organism with five being methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. CONCLUSIONS: An 11% incidence of perimegaprosthetic infections is consistent with the increased risk of infection seen in other studies. A variety of surgical methods were employed at our institution and by those contributing to the literature without clear evidence of superiority of one method over another. Given the complicated medical and surgical histories of these patients, individualization in decision making is necessary. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
    Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 02/2013; 471(10). DOI:10.1007/s11999-013-2852-7 · 2.77 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Although infections are a major cause of morbidity and mortality after total joint arthroplasty (TJA), little is known about nationwide epidemiology and trends of infections after TJA. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We therefore determined (1) trends of postoperative pneumonia, urinary tract infection (UTI), surgical site infection (SSI), sepsis, and severe sepsis after TJA; (2) risk factors of these infections; (3) effect of these infections on length of stay (LOS) and hospital charges; and (4) the infection-related mortality rate and its predictors. METHODS: The International Classification of Diseases, 9(th) Revision codes were used to identify patients who underwent TJA and were diagnosed with aforementioned infections during hospitalization in the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database from 2002 to 2010. Multivariate analysis was performed to identify risk factors of these infections. RESULTS: Rates of pneumonia, UTI, SSI, sepsis, and severe sepsis were 0.74%, 3.26%, 0.31%, 0.25%, and 0.15%, respectively. Number of comorbidities and type of TJA were independent predictors of infection. Mortality decreased during the study period (odds ratio, 0.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.86-0.89). The median LOS was 3 days without complications but increased in the presence of SSI (median, 7 days), sepsis (median, 12 days), and severe sepsis (median, 15 days). Occurrence of pneumonia, sepsis, and severe sepsis increased risk of mortality 5.2, 8.5, and 66.2 times, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Rates of UTI, pneumonia, and SSI but not sepsis and severe sepsis are apparently decreasing. The likelihood of infection is increasing with number of comorbidities and revision surgeries. Rate of sepsis-related mortality is also decreasing. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, prognostic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
    Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 04/2013; 471(10). DOI:10.1007/s11999-013-2949-z · 2.77 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: 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%. Cox's 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. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:636-42.
    Bone and Joint Journal 05/2013; 95-B(5):636-42. DOI:10.1302/0301-620X.95B5.30271 · 1.96 Impact Factor
Show more