Monoblock all-polyethylene tibial components have a lower risk of early revision than metal-backed modular components

Southern California Permanente Medical Group, Department of Orthopedic Surgery , Kaiser Permanente, Irvine.
Acta Orthopaedica (Impact Factor: 2.45). 11/2013; 84(6). DOI: 10.3109/17453674.2013.862459
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Background and purpose With younger patients seeking reconstructions and the activity-based demands placed on the arthroplasty construct, consideration of the role that implant characteristics play in arthroplasty longevity is warranted. We therefore evaluated the risk of early revision for a monoblock all-polyethylene tibial component compared to a metal-backed modular tibial construct with the same articular geometry in a sample of total knee arthroplasties (TKAs). We evaluated risk of revision in younger patients (< 65 years old) and in older patients (≥ 65 years old). Method Fixed primary TKAs with implants from a single manufacturer, performed between April 2001 and December 2010, were analyzed retrospectively. Patient characteristics, surgeon, hospital, procedure, and implant characteristics were compared according to tibial component type (monoblock all-polyethylene vs. metal-backed modular). All-cause revisions and aseptic revisions were evaluated. We used descriptive statistics and Cox regression models. Results 27,657 TKAs were identified, 2,306 (8%) with monoblock and 25,351 (92%) with modular components. In adjusted models, the risk of early all-cause revision (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.5, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.3-0.8) and aseptic revision (HR = 0.6, CI: 0.3-1.2) was lower for the monoblock cohort than for the modular cohort. In older patients, the early risk of all-cause revision was 0.6 (CI: 0.4-1.0) for the monoblock cohort compared to the modular cohort. In younger patients, the adjusted risk of all-cause revision (HR = 0.3, CI: 0.1-0.7) and of aseptic revision (HR = 0.3, CI: 0.1-0.7) were lower for the monoblock cohort than for the modular cohort. Interpretation Overall, monoblock tibial constructs had a 49% lower early risk of all-cause revision and a 41% lower risk of aseptic revision than modular constructs. In younger patients with monoblock components, the early risk of revision for any cause was even lower.

1 Follower
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A Total Joint Replacement Registry was developed in a large community-based practice to track implant utilization, monitor revisions and complications, identify patients during recalls and advisories, and provide feedback on clinical practices. We describe the development, implementation, and integration of this Total Joint Replacement Registry, highlighting critical steps in aligning information technology and operations. The primary Total Joint Replacement Registry data source consists of standardized electronic health record forms developed by consensus. The Total Joint Replacement Registry forms are integrated into the clinical workflow (preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative) and produce a standardized progress note for electronic health record documentation. Secondary data are extracted from other electronic data sources using standard terminologies (ie, ICD-9 codes) to supplement the Total Joint Replacement Registry forms. Electronic screening algorithms are applied to identify complications, in combination with chart review validation and quality control mechanisms. Three hundred fifty surgeons voluntarily contribute to the registry with 90% participation. The registry has been used for implant recalls and advisories, contract decision making, and identification of patients at risk for revisions (eg, younger patients having total knee arthroplasty). Tracking of overall survival of implants influenced clinical practice, with feedback resulting in the reduction of the number of unicompartmental and uncemented knee arthroplasties performed, usage of femoral head sizes < 28 mm, and the number of minimally invasive surgical procedures performed. The Total Joint Replacement Registry has effectively aligned operations with information technology and leveraged that to enhance our ability to respond to recalls and advisories as well as improve quality of care, cost-effectiveness, and create research opportunities.
    Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 10/2010; 468(10):2646-63. DOI:10.1007/s11999-010-1463-9 · 2.88 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Considering the high cost, volume, and patient safety issues associated with medical devices, monitoring of medical device performance is critical to ensure patient safety and quality of care. The purpose of this article is to describe the Kaiser Permanente (KP) implant registries and to highlight the benefits of these implant registries on patient safety, quality, cost effectiveness, and research. Eight KP implant registries leverage the integrated health care system's administrative databases and electronic health records system. Registry data collected undergo quality control and validation as well as statistical analysis. Patient safety has been enhanced through identification of affected patients during major recalls, identification of risk factors associated with outcomes of interest, development of risk calculators, and surveillance programs for infections and adverse events. Effective quality improvement activities included medical center- and surgeon-specific profiles for use in benchmarking reports, and changes in practice related to registry information output. Among the cost-effectiveness strategies employed were collaborations with sourcing and contracting groups, and assistance in adherence to formulary device guidelines. Research studies using registry data included postoperative complications, resource utilization, infection risk factors, thromboembolic prophylaxis, effects of surgical delay on concurrent injuries, and sports injury patterns. The unique KP implant registries provide important information and affect several areas of our organization, including patient safety, quality improvement, cost-effectiveness, and research.
    The Permanente journal 01/2012; 16(2):36-44.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Between January 1988 and December 2006, a total of 3014 primary total knee arthroplasties (TKAs) in 2042 patients were performed, and survivorship analysis was performed. Survivorship analysis showed a 10-year survival of 93.8% and a 20-year survival of 70.9%. There was no significant difference in the survival rate according to sex and diagnosis (P = .142 and .443, respectively). The survival rate was higher in the patients older than 60 years (P < .001). The survival rate of Total Condylar IV (TC-IV) was higher than that of Ortholoc (Dow Corning Wright Medical, Arlington, Tenn) (P < .001). Total knee arthroplasty results in satisfactory long-term survival rates. However, the survival rate decreases over time. The risk of requiring revision TKA was related to age and type of implants. Careful consideration is necessary to decide the time for TKA and select type of implants.
    The Journal of arthroplasty 12/2011; 27(7):1297-1304.e1. DOI:10.1016/j.arth.2011.10.027 · 2.37 Impact Factor

Full-text (3 Sources)

Available from
Jun 3, 2014