Background

The objective of this study was to describe the incidence of aseptic loosening (AL) of cemented stem distal femoral replacements (DFR) and to identify modifiable risk factors for its development.

Methods

A retrospective review was performed of 245 consecutive primary, cemented stem DFRs implanted at a single institution over a 40-year period. The primary outcome was revision surgery for AL. A multivariate analysis was performed to identify risk factors for AL. Radiographs were reviewed to identify stem tip location, which was defined as diaphyseal or metaphyseal. Implant survival to AL was compared using Kaplan-Meier analysis.

Results

AL and structural failure were the most common causes of implant failure (incidence 11.8%, 29/245). Younger age (P = .002), male sex (P = .01), longer resection length (P = .04), and nonmodular implants (P = .002) were all significantly associated with AL. After 1:1 matching, stem tip location in metaphyseal bone was independently associated with AL (P = .04). 36% (9/25) of implants that loosened had a stem tip located in the metaphysis vs only 8% (2/25) of implants that did not fail. 30-year survival to AL was lower for implants with a metaphyseal stem tip than implants with a diaphyseal stem tip (22.7% vs 47.6%; P = .11).

Conclusion

A stem tip location in metaphyseal bone is associated with diminished survival to AL. When templating before DFR, stem tip location can assist in identifying high-risk reconstructions that may benefit from alternative or supplemental fixation techniques to prevent the development of AL.

Background

The durability of endoprostheses after limb salvage surgery is influenced by surgical factors (resection length, implant location, and residual bone quality), implant design (modular versus custom design, rotating versus fixed hinge, coating, collars, and the use of cross pins), and host factors (patient's immune status, activity levels, and age). In general, radiation therapy increases the risk of fractures, infection, delayed wound healing, and impaired osseointegration. Several studies have shown exposure to radiation to be associated with higher endoprosthesis revision rates and higher periprosthetic infection rates, but results are inconsistent. Although radiation therapy is not routinely used in the treatment of many bone sarcomas in current practice, it is still used in high doses after resection and prosthetic reconstruction in patients who have Ewing sarcoma with close or positive margins and in patients with soft tissue sarcoma. It is also used in varying doses after prosthetic reconstruction in patients with myeloma or bone metastasis after resection of periarticular destructive tumors. These patients may be at an increased risk of complications due to their radiation exposure, but this is a difficult question to study given the rarity of these diagnoses and poor overall survival of these patients. We therefore leveraged a large, longitudinally collected, 40-year endoprosthesis database that included patients who received radiation to the extremity for many bone and soft tissue sarcomas to investigate the association between preoperative or postoperative radiation therapy and endoprosthesis survival.

Questions/purposes

(1) Is receiving preoperative or postoperative radiation therapy in low or high doses for the treatment of bone or soft tissue malignancy of the lower extremities associated with decreased implant survivorship free from amputation or revision due to any cause? (2) Is receiving preoperative or postoperative radiation therapy in low or high doses for the treatment of bone or soft tissue malignancy of the lower extremities associated with decreased implant survivorship free from revision specifically due to aseptic loosening? (3) Is receiving preoperative or postoperative radiation therapy for the treatment of Ewing sarcoma of the femur specifically associated with decreased implant survivorship free from revision specifically due to aseptic loosening?

Methods

This was a retrospective, comparative study using our institution's database of 822 endoprostheses. Between 1980 and 2019, we treated 541 patients with primary cemented endoprostheses of the extremities. Of those patients, 8% (45 of 541) were excluded due to unknown radiation status, 3% (17 of 541) because of prior failed allograft, 15% (83 of 541) due to metastatic disease from a carcinoma, 1% (6 of 541) due to a nononcologic diagnosis, 4% (20 of 541) due to benign tumor diagnosis, 16% (87 of 541) due to upper extremity tumor location, 9% (49 of 541) due to not receiving chemotherapy, and 3% (14 of 541) due to expandable prostheses. Of the remaining 220 patients, 6% (13) were considered missing because they did not have 2 years of follow-up and did not reach a study endpoint. No patients had surgery within the last 2 years of the study end date. In all, 207 patients met inclusion criteria and were eligible for analysis. Patients who had received radiation to the lower extremities at any point in their treatment course were included in the radiation group and were compared with patients who did not receive radiation. For patients where radiation dose was available, the radiation group was subdivided into a low-dose (≤ 3000 cGy) and high-dose (> 3000 cGy) group. Revision surgery was defined as any surgery necessitating removal or replacement of the tibial or femoral stem. The complications necessitating revision or amputation were poor wound healing, aseptic loosening, implant breakage, deep infection, and tumor progression. The primary outcome of interest was implant survival free from revision or amputation due to any cause. The secondary outcome of interest was implant survival free from revision or amputation specifically due to aseptic loosening. The Kaplan-Meier survivorship curves were generated with implant survival free from revision or amputation as the endpoint and patient death as a competing risk. A log-rank test was used to identify differences in survivorship between the patients who received radiation and those who did not. Multivariate regression was used to identify factors associated with decreased implant survival. An odds ratio was used to determine relative effect size among the factors associated with decreased implant survival.

Results

The mean implant survival time for patients who did not receive radiation was 18.3 years (95% confidence interval [CI] 15.4 to 21.3) whereas the mean implant survival time for patients who received low- and high-dose radiation were 19.1 years (95% CI 14.5 to 23.7; p = 0.59) and 13.8 years (95% CI 8.2 to 19.5; p = 0.65), respectively. The mean implant survival free from revision for aseptic loosening for patients who did not receive radiation was 27.1 years (95% CI 24.1 to 30.1) whereas the mean implant survival for patients who received low- and high-dose radiation were 24.1 years (95% CI 19.1 to 29.1; p = 0.34) and 16.4 years (95% CI 10.6 to 22.2; p = 0.01), respectively. Patients who received high-dose radiation had decreased 5-year implant survivorship free from amputation or revision due to aseptic loosening (73% [95% CI 44% to 89%]) compared with patients who did not receive radiation (95% [95% CI 90% to 99%]; p = 0.01). For patients treated for Ewing sarcoma of the femur, the 5-year implant survival free from amputation or revision due to aseptic loosening for patients who did not receive radiation (100% [95% CI 100% to 100%]) was no different compared with patients who received radiation (71% [95% CI 35% to 90%]; p = 0.56).

Conclusion

The results of this study may apply to scenarios where radiation is used, such as Ewing sarcoma with positive margins or local recurrence and after prosthetic reconstruction in patients with myeloma or bone metastasis after resection of periarticular destructive tumors. Surgeons may consider closer monitoring for early clinical and radiographic signs of aseptic loosening in patients who received high-dose radiation. These patients may also benefit from constructs that have increased resistance to aseptic loosening such as cross-pin or side plate fixation. The association between radiation and aseptic loosening should be further studied with larger studies with homogeneity in tumor diagnosis and prosthesis. The dose-dependent relationship between radiation and bone-related complications may also benefit from controlled, laboratory-based biomechanical studies.

Level of evidence

Level III, therapeutic study.

Background

Well known for their hemostatic function, platelets are increasingly becoming recognized as important immunomodulators. The purpose of the present study was to assess the impact of platelet depletion on antimicrobial host defense in a mouse model of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI).

Methods

Thrombocytopenia (TCP) was induced in C57BL/6 mice with use of a selective antibody against platelet CD41 (anti-CD41). Whole blood from pre-treated mice was incubated with Staphylococcus aureus to assess antimicrobial efficacy with use of bioluminescent imaging, quantitative histological staining, and colony forming unit (CFU) quantification. In parallel, untreated heterologous platelets were added to TCP blood to assess potential rescue of antimicrobial efficacy. In vivo, TCP and control mice underwent placement of a titanium implant in the femur inoculated with bioluminescent Xen36 S. aureus. Longitudinal bioluminescent imaging was performed postoperatively to quantify the evolution of bacterial burden, which was confirmed via assessment of S. aureus CFUs on the implant and in peri-implant tissue on postoperative day (POD) 28.

Results

Anti-CD41 treatment resulted in significant dose-dependent reductions in platelet count. Ex vivo, platelet-depleted whole blood demonstrated significantly less bacterial reduction than control blood. These outcomes were reversed with the addition of untreated rescue platelets. In vivo, infection burden was significantly higher in TCP mice and was inversely correlated with preoperative platelet count (r2 = 0.63, p = 0.037). Likewise, CFU quantification on POD28 was associated with increased bacterial proliferation and severity of periprosthetic infection in TCP mice compared with controls.

Conclusions

Thrombocytopenia resulted in an increased bacterial burden both ex vivo and in vivo in a mouse model of PJI.

Clinical relevance

In orthopaedic patients, deficiencies in platelet quantity or function represent an easily modifiable risk factor for PJI.

Background

As primary total knee arthroplasty volume continues to increase, so will the number of revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) procedures. The purpose of this study is to provide an updated perspective on the incidence, indications, and financial burden of rTKA in the United States.

Material and methods

This was a retrospective epidemiologic analysis using the National Inpatient Sample. International Classification of Diseases ninth and tenth revision codes were used to identify patients who underwent rTKA and create cohorts based on rTKA indications from 2012 to 2019. National and regional trends for length of stay, cost, and discharge location were evaluated.

Results

A total of 505,160 rTKA procedures were identified. The annual number of rTKA procedures increased by 29.6% over the study period (56,490 to 73,205). The top 3 indications for rTKA were aseptic loosening (23.1%), periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) (20.4%), and instability (11.0%). Over the study period, the proportion of patients discharged to skilled nursing facility decreased from 31.7% to 24.1% (P < .001). Hospital length of stay decreased from 4.0 days in 2012 to 3.8 days in 2019 (P < .001). Hospital costs increased by $1300 from $25,730 to $27,077 (P < .001). The proportion of rTKA cases performed at urban academic centers increased (52.1% to 74.3%, P < .001) while that at urban nonacademic centers decreased (39.0% to 19.2%, P < .001).

Conclusion

The top 3 indications for rTKA were aseptic loosening, PJI, and instability, with PJI becoming the most common indication in 2019. These cases are increasingly being performed at urban academic centers and away from urban nonacademic centers.

Level of evidence

3 (Retrospective cohort study).

Background

Cemented endoprosthetic reconstruction after resection of primary bone sarcomas has been in common use for decades. Although multiple studies have reported the survivorship of primary endoprostheses, implant survivorship after revision surgery is less well established. Given that earlier advances in systemic therapy improved survival of patients with sarcoma, the usage of revision endoprostheses can be expected to increase and, as such, understanding revision implant survivorship will help to inform patient and surgeon expectations. Additionally, as new implants are developed that allow alternative reconstruction options, a normative dataset establishing accurate expectations for revision cemented endoprostheses is a critical benchmark by which to measure progress.

Questions/purposes

(1) What is the implant survivorship free of all-cause revision for primary and revision cemented distal femoral replacements (DFRs) used in the treatment of malignant or benign tumors? (2) What are the most common indications for revision of primary and revision DFRs in an oncology population with mean follow-up of more than 10 years? (3) How does the indication for revision of a primary DFR affect the subsequent risk for and type of revision DFR complication? (4) What patient, tumor, or implant characteristics are associated with improved survivorship free of revision in cemented DFRs used in patients treated initially for primary malignant or benign tumors?

Methods

This was a retrospective, comparative study using our institution's longitudinally-maintained database of 806 cemented endoprostheses starting in 1980 and assessed through December 31, 2018. In all, 365 DFRs were inserted during this time, but 14% (51 of 365) were placed for nonprimary bone tumors and 1% (5 of 365) were cementless reconstructions, leaving 309 cemented DFRs. Seventy-one percent (218 of 309) were primary implants and 29 percent (91 of 309) were revision implants (used to revise a prior DFR in all patients). During this time period, our strong bias was to use cemented stems and, thus, nearly all of our patients had cemented stems. Six percent (13 of 218) of primary DFRs were implanted more than 2 years before the study end; however, they lacked 2 years of follow-up data and, thus, were considered lost to follow-up, leaving 205 implants in the primary DFR analysis group. Only the first revision after primary DFR revision surgery was included in the revision cohort analysis. Thirty-two percent (29 of 91) of revision DFRs were second or more revision patients and were excluded, leaving 62 implants in the revision analysis group. Most patients in both groups were men (57% [117 of 205] for primary and 71% [44 of 62] for revision) who had been diagnosed with osteosarcoma (75% [153 of 205] and 73% [45 of 62] for primary and revision, respectively). The primary cohort had mean age of 26 ± 16 years with a mean follow-up of 136 ± 122 months, and the revision cohort had mean age of 31 ± 13 years (p = 0.02) with 141 ± 101 months of follow-up. Study endpoints included all-cause implant revision and cause-specific revision for soft tissue complications, aseptic loosening, structural complications (defined as periprosthetic or implant fracture), infection, or tumor progression. Planned surgery for implant lengthening procedures was excluded. Implant survivorship free from all-cause revision was calculated using a competing risk (cumulative incidence) estimator with death as a competing risk. A log-rank test using chi-square analysis was used to evaluate the differences in implant survivorship between primary DFRs and first revisions. The cause-specific incidences of implant revision were tabulated for primary and revision DFRs. Cox regression analysis investigated the odds of subsequent all-cause revision surgery for revision cemented DFRs based on the primary implant complication. A binary logistic regression analysis using age, gender, indication for revision, tumor type, infection, perioperative chemotherapy, and radiation was performed to identify factors associated with a second DFR reoperation. Relative effect sizes are reported as ORs.

Results

The revision DFR cohort had a shorter mean survival to all-cause revision than the primary cohort (mean 10 years [95% CI 7 to 12] versus 18 years [95% CI 15 to 20]; p < 0.001). The most common complications necessitating revision for revision implants were periprosthetic or implant fracture in 37% (23 of 62) and aseptic loosening in 15% (9 of 62), and the type of primary implant complication was not associated with risk of subsequent all-cause revision surgery for revision implants. Stem diameter less than 15 mm was associated with repeat all-cause revision in cemented revision DFRs after controlling for resection length, stem length, implant fabrication (custom or modular), and presence of a porous collar (OR 4 [95% CI 1 to 17]; p = 0.03). No other parameters that we explored, including patient age, gender, chemoradiation history, or primary tumor diagnosis, were associated with repeat revision surgery.

Conclusion

Understanding modifiable factors that can improve revision DFR survival is critical to achieving long-term limb salvage for patients with tumors around the knee. Our data suggest that utilizing implants with the largest possible stems-or at a minimum increasing the stem size over the primary implant-is important to revision cemented DFR survivorship and is an important part of our revision practice. Improving revision implants' resistance to aseptic loosening through designs that resist torsion (a common mode of cemented fixation failure)-such as with the use of custom cross-pin fabrication-may be one method to improve survivorship. Another will be improved implant metallurgy that is resistant to fatigue fracture. Next steps may include understanding the optimal ratio of femoral diaphyseal width to implant diameter in patients where anatomic constraints preclude the insertion of cemented stems 15 mm or more in diameter.

Level of evidence

Level IV, therapeutic study.

Introduction

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) represents a devastating complication of total joint arthroplasty associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Literature suggests a possible higher incidence of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). There is, however, no consensus on this purported risk nor a well-defined mechanism. This study investigates how collagen-induced arthritis (CIA), a validated animal model of RA, impacts infectious burden in a well-established model of PJI.

Methods

Control mice were compared against CIA mice. Whole blood samples were collected to quantify systemic IgG levels via ELISA. Ex vivo respiratory burst function was measured via dihydrorhodamine assay. Ex vivo Staphylococcus aureus Xen36 burden was measured directly via colony forming unit (CFU) counts and crystal violet assay to assess biofilm formation. In vivo, surgical placement of a titanium implant through the knee joint and inoculation with S. aureus Xen36 was performed. Bacterial burden was then quantified by longitudinal bioluminescent imaging.

Results

Mice with CIA demonstrated significantly higher levels of systemic IgG compared with control mice (p = 0.003). Ex vivo, there was no significant difference in respiratory burst function (p = 0.89) or S. aureus bacterial burden as measured by CFU counts (p = 0.91) and crystal violet assay (p = 0.96). In vivo, no significant difference in bacterial bioluminescence between groups was found at all postoperative time points. CFU counts of both the implant and the peri-implant tissue were not significantly different between groups (p = 0.82 and 0.80, respectively).

Conclusion

This study demonstrated no significant difference in S. aureus infectious burden between mice with CIA and control mice. These results suggest that untreated, active RA may not represent a significant intrinsic risk factor for PJI, however further mechanistic translational and clinical studies are warranted.

Spine implant infections portend poor outcomes as diagnosis is challenging and surgical eradication is at odds with mechanical spinal stability. The purpose of this method is to describe a novel mouse model of spinal implant infection (SII) that was created to provide an inexpensive, rapid, and accurate in vivo tool to test potential therapeutics and treatment strategies for spinal implant infections. In this method, we present a model of posterior-approach spinal surgery in which a stainless-steel k-wire is transfixed into the L4 spinous process of 12-week old C57BL/6J wild-type mice and inoculated with 1 x 103 CFU of a bioluminescent strain of Staphylococcus aureus Xen36 bacteria. Mice are then longitudinally imaged for bioluminescence in vivo on post-operative days 0, 1, 3, 5, 7, 10, 14, 18, 21, 25, 28, and 35. Bioluminescence imaging (BLI) signals from a standardized field of view are quantified to measure in vivo bacterial burden. To quantify bacteria adhering to implants and peri-implant tissue, mice are euthanized and the implant and surrounding soft tissue are harvested. Bacteria are detached from the implant by sonication, cultured overnight and then colony forming units (CFUs) are counted. The results acquired from this method include longitudinal bacterial counts as measured by in vivo S. aureus bioluminescence (mean maximum flux) and CFU counts following euthanasia. While prior animal models of instrumented spine infection have involved invasive, ex vivo tissue analysis, the mouse model of SII presented in this paper leverages noninvasive, real time in vivo optical imaging of bioluminescent bacteria to replace static tissue study. Applications of the model are broad and may include utilizing alternative bioluminescent bacterial strains, incorporating other types of genetically engineered mice to contemporaneously study host immune response, and evaluating current or investigating new diagnostic and therapeutic modalities such as antibiotics or implant coatings.

Background: Evidence suggests the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) plays key immunomodulatory roles. In particular, angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) has been shown to play a role in antimicrobial host defense. ACE inhibitors (ACEi) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) are some of the most commonly prescribed medications, especially in patients undergoing invasive surgery. Thus, the current study assessed the immunomodulatory effect of RAS-modulation in a preclinical model of implant infection. Methods: In vitro antimicrobial effects of ACEi and ARBs were first assessed. C57BL/6J mice subsequently received either an ACEi (lisinopril; 16 mg/kg/day), an ARB (losartan; 30 mg/kg/day), or no treatment. Conditioned mice blood was then utilized to quantify respiratory burst function as well as Staphylococcus aureus Xen36 burden ex vivo in each treatment group. S. aureus infectious burden for each treatment group was then assessed in vivo using a validated mouse model of implant infection. Real-time quantitation of infectious burden via bioluminescent imaging over the course of 28 days post-procedure was assessed. Host response via monocyte and neutrophil infiltration within paraspinal and spleen tissue was quantified by immunohistochemistry for F4/80 and myeloperoxidase, respectively. Results: Blood from mice treated with an ACEi demonstrated a decreased ability to eradicate bacteria when mixed with Xen36 as significantly higher levels of colony forming units (CFU) and biofilm formation was appreciated ex vivo (p < 0.05). Mice treated with an ACEi showed a higher infection burden in vivo at all times (p < 0.05) and significantly higher CFUs of bacteria on both implant and paraspinal tissue at the time of sacrifice (p < 0.05 for each comparison). There was also significantly decreased infiltration and respiratory burst function of immune effector cells in the ACEi group (p < 0.05). Conclusion: ACEi, but not ARB, treatment resulted in increased S. aureus burden and impaired immune response in a preclinical model of implant infection. These results suggest that perioperative ACEi use may represent a previously unappreciated risk factor for surgical site infection. Given the relative interchangeability of ACEi and ARB from a cardiovascular standpoint, this risk factor may be modifiable.