Cargando…
A matched comparison of revision rates of cemented Oxford Unicompartmental Knee Replacements with Single and Twin Peg femoral components, based on data from the National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man
Background and purpose — Registries report high revision rates after unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) due, in part, to aseptic loosing. In an attempt to improve Oxford UKR femoral component fixation a new design was introduced with a Twin rather than a Single peg. We used the National Joint R...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Taylor & Francis
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8023905/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32420778 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17453674.2020.1748288 |
_version_ | 1783675198913904640 |
---|---|
author | Mohammad, Hasan R Matharu, Gulraj S Judge, Andrew Murray, David W |
author_facet | Mohammad, Hasan R Matharu, Gulraj S Judge, Andrew Murray, David W |
author_sort | Mohammad, Hasan R |
collection | PubMed |
description | Background and purpose — Registries report high revision rates after unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) due, in part, to aseptic loosing. In an attempt to improve Oxford UKR femoral component fixation a new design was introduced with a Twin rather than a Single peg. We used the National Joint Registry (NJR) to compare the 5-year outcomes of the Single and Twin Peg cemented Oxford UKRs. Patients and methods — We performed a retrospective observational study using NJR data on propensity score matched Single and Twin Peg UKRs (matched for patient, implant and surgical factors). Data on 2,834 Single Peg and 2,834 Twin Peg were analyzed. Cumulative implant survival was calculated using the Kaplan–Meier method and comparisons between groups performed using Cox regression models. Results — In the matched cohort, the mean follow up for both Single and Twin Peg UKRs was 3.3 (SD 2) and 3.4 years (SD 2) respectively. The 5-year cumulative implant survival rates for Single Peg and Twin Peg were 94.8% (95% CI 93.6–95.8) and 96.2% (CI 95.1–97.1) respectively. Implant revision rates were statistically significantly lower in the Twin Peg (hazard ratio [HR)] = 0.74; p = 0.04). The revision rate for femoral component aseptic loosening decreased significantly (p = 0.03) from 0.4% (n = 11) with the Single Peg to 0.1% (n = 3) with the Twin Peg. The revision rate for pain decreased significantly (p = 0.01) from 0.8% (n = 23) with the Single Peg to 0.3% (n = 9) with the Twin Peg. No other reasons for revision had significant differences in revision rates. Interpretation — The revision rate for the cemented Twin Peg Oxford UKR was 26% less than the Single Peg Oxford UKR. This was mainly because the revision rates for femoral loosening and pain more than halved. This suggests that the Twin Peg component should be used in preference to the Single Peg design. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8023905 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | Taylor & Francis |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-80239052021-04-22 A matched comparison of revision rates of cemented Oxford Unicompartmental Knee Replacements with Single and Twin Peg femoral components, based on data from the National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man Mohammad, Hasan R Matharu, Gulraj S Judge, Andrew Murray, David W Acta Orthop Articles Background and purpose — Registries report high revision rates after unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) due, in part, to aseptic loosing. In an attempt to improve Oxford UKR femoral component fixation a new design was introduced with a Twin rather than a Single peg. We used the National Joint Registry (NJR) to compare the 5-year outcomes of the Single and Twin Peg cemented Oxford UKRs. Patients and methods — We performed a retrospective observational study using NJR data on propensity score matched Single and Twin Peg UKRs (matched for patient, implant and surgical factors). Data on 2,834 Single Peg and 2,834 Twin Peg were analyzed. Cumulative implant survival was calculated using the Kaplan–Meier method and comparisons between groups performed using Cox regression models. Results — In the matched cohort, the mean follow up for both Single and Twin Peg UKRs was 3.3 (SD 2) and 3.4 years (SD 2) respectively. The 5-year cumulative implant survival rates for Single Peg and Twin Peg were 94.8% (95% CI 93.6–95.8) and 96.2% (CI 95.1–97.1) respectively. Implant revision rates were statistically significantly lower in the Twin Peg (hazard ratio [HR)] = 0.74; p = 0.04). The revision rate for femoral component aseptic loosening decreased significantly (p = 0.03) from 0.4% (n = 11) with the Single Peg to 0.1% (n = 3) with the Twin Peg. The revision rate for pain decreased significantly (p = 0.01) from 0.8% (n = 23) with the Single Peg to 0.3% (n = 9) with the Twin Peg. No other reasons for revision had significant differences in revision rates. Interpretation — The revision rate for the cemented Twin Peg Oxford UKR was 26% less than the Single Peg Oxford UKR. This was mainly because the revision rates for femoral loosening and pain more than halved. This suggests that the Twin Peg component should be used in preference to the Single Peg design. Taylor & Francis 2020-04-16 /pmc/articles/PMC8023905/ /pubmed/32420778 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17453674.2020.1748288 Text en © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Taylor & Francis on behalf of the Nordic Orthopedic Federation http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ |
spellingShingle | Articles Mohammad, Hasan R Matharu, Gulraj S Judge, Andrew Murray, David W A matched comparison of revision rates of cemented Oxford Unicompartmental Knee Replacements with Single and Twin Peg femoral components, based on data from the National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man |
title | A matched comparison of revision rates of cemented Oxford Unicompartmental Knee Replacements with Single and Twin Peg femoral components, based on data from the National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man |
title_full | A matched comparison of revision rates of cemented Oxford Unicompartmental Knee Replacements with Single and Twin Peg femoral components, based on data from the National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man |
title_fullStr | A matched comparison of revision rates of cemented Oxford Unicompartmental Knee Replacements with Single and Twin Peg femoral components, based on data from the National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man |
title_full_unstemmed | A matched comparison of revision rates of cemented Oxford Unicompartmental Knee Replacements with Single and Twin Peg femoral components, based on data from the National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man |
title_short | A matched comparison of revision rates of cemented Oxford Unicompartmental Knee Replacements with Single and Twin Peg femoral components, based on data from the National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man |
title_sort | matched comparison of revision rates of cemented oxford unicompartmental knee replacements with single and twin peg femoral components, based on data from the national joint registry for england, wales, northern ireland and the isle of man |
topic | Articles |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8023905/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32420778 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17453674.2020.1748288 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT mohammadhasanr amatchedcomparisonofrevisionratesofcementedoxfordunicompartmentalkneereplacementswithsingleandtwinpegfemoralcomponentsbasedondatafromthenationaljointregistryforenglandwalesnorthernirelandandtheisleofman AT matharugulrajs amatchedcomparisonofrevisionratesofcementedoxfordunicompartmentalkneereplacementswithsingleandtwinpegfemoralcomponentsbasedondatafromthenationaljointregistryforenglandwalesnorthernirelandandtheisleofman AT judgeandrew amatchedcomparisonofrevisionratesofcementedoxfordunicompartmentalkneereplacementswithsingleandtwinpegfemoralcomponentsbasedondatafromthenationaljointregistryforenglandwalesnorthernirelandandtheisleofman AT murraydavidw amatchedcomparisonofrevisionratesofcementedoxfordunicompartmentalkneereplacementswithsingleandtwinpegfemoralcomponentsbasedondatafromthenationaljointregistryforenglandwalesnorthernirelandandtheisleofman AT mohammadhasanr matchedcomparisonofrevisionratesofcementedoxfordunicompartmentalkneereplacementswithsingleandtwinpegfemoralcomponentsbasedondatafromthenationaljointregistryforenglandwalesnorthernirelandandtheisleofman AT matharugulrajs matchedcomparisonofrevisionratesofcementedoxfordunicompartmentalkneereplacementswithsingleandtwinpegfemoralcomponentsbasedondatafromthenationaljointregistryforenglandwalesnorthernirelandandtheisleofman AT judgeandrew matchedcomparisonofrevisionratesofcementedoxfordunicompartmentalkneereplacementswithsingleandtwinpegfemoralcomponentsbasedondatafromthenationaljointregistryforenglandwalesnorthernirelandandtheisleofman AT murraydavidw matchedcomparisonofrevisionratesofcementedoxfordunicompartmentalkneereplacementswithsingleandtwinpegfemoralcomponentsbasedondatafromthenationaljointregistryforenglandwalesnorthernirelandandtheisleofman |