Article

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.

Full-text

Available from: Maria C S Inacio, Jun 03, 2014
1 Follower
 · 
82 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: One of the concepts that Rik Huiskes promoted was that implants such as knee and hip replacements could be analyzed and optimized using numerical models such as finite element analysis, or by experimental testing, an area he called pre-clinical testing. The design itself could be formulated or improved by defining a specific goal or asking a key question. These propositions are examined in the light of almost five decades of experience with knee implants. Achieving the required laxity and stability, was achieved by attempting to reproduce anatomical values by suitable radii of curvature and selective ligament retention. Obtaining durable fixation was based on testing many configurations to obtain the most uniform stress distribution at the implant-bone interface. Achieving the best overall kinematics has yet to be fully solved due to the variations in activities and patients. These and many other factors have usually been addressed individually rather than as a composite, although as time has gone on, successful features have gradually been assimilated into most designs. But even a systematic approach has been flawed because some unrecognized response was not accounted for in the pre-clinical model, a limitation of models in general. In terms of the design process, so far no method has emerged for systematically reaching an optimal solution from all aspects, although this is possible in principle. Overall however, predictive numerical or physical models should be an essential element in the design of new or improved knee replacements, a part of the design process itself. Copyright © 2015. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
    Journal of Biomechanics 01/2015; 48(5). DOI:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2014.12.012 · 2.50 Impact Factor