Manipulation under Anesthesia: Does Polyethylene Thickness Matter?

Abstract

Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has been established as the most effective treatment for end-stage, symptomatic osteoarthritis of the knee. However, improper polyethylene size selection has been proposed to predispose patients to postoperative stiffness following TKA. The aim of this study is to evaluate if there is a correlation between the use of the thinnest tibial implant thickness and implant manufacturer with the likelihood of undergoing manipulation under anesthesia (MUA). A retrospective review of unilateral TKAs performed between January 2012 and November 2015 was performed. Each knee implant system was normalized by total tibial component thickness for each individual implant system (metal back plus polyethylene) and reaggregated to assess the difference in MUA rates when comparing the thinnest tibial component thickness against the next two sizes. Subset analysis was performed comparing the thinnest tibial component thickness for each individual implant system versus (1) all other tibial component sizes and (2) tibial components one and two sizes larger. A total of 2,728 patients were retrospectively evaluated, of which 71 (2.60%) underwent MUA. Combined tibial component thickness ranged from 8 to 21 mm. When aggregated together to compare the MUA rate between the thinnest liner and the next two sizes, no statistically significant difference was observed (p = 1). Subset analysis demonstrated inconsistent significant differences in MUA rates. Our results suggest that the polyethylene liner thickness alone is not a predictor of postoperative knee stiffness necessitating MUA. When selecting a polyethylene liner, a proper fit maximizing flexion/extension stability is the most crucial factor.

Keywords

total knee arthroplasty - polyethylene thickness - tibial resection - knee stiffness - manipulation under anesthesia

• References

• 1 Wolford ML, Palso K, Bercovitz A. Hospitalization for total hip replacement among inpatients aged 45 and over: United States, 2000-2010. NCHS Data Brief 2015; (186) 1-8
• 2 Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, Mowat F, Halpern M. Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007; 89 (04) 780-785
• 3 Kim J, Nelson CL, Lotke PA. Stiffness after total knee arthroplasty. Prevalence of the complication and outcomes of revision. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004; 86-A [phone]
• 4 Yercan HS, Sugun TS, Bussiere C, Ait Si Selmi T, Davies A, Neyret P. Stiffness after total knee arthroplasty: prevalence, management and outcomes. Knee 2006; 13 (02) 111-117
• 5 Schiavone Panni A, Cerciello S, Vasso M, Tartarone M. Stiffness in total knee arthroplasty. J Orthop Traumatol 2009; 10 (03) 111-118
• 6 Issa K, Rifai A, Boylan MR, Pourtaheri S, McInerney VK, Mont MA. Do various factors affect the frequency of manipulation under anesthesia after primary total knee arthroplasty?. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2015; 473 (01) 143-147
• 7 Meehan JP, Monazzam S, Miles T, Danielsen B, White RH. Postoperative stiffness requiring manipulation under anesthesia is significantly reduced after simultaneous versus staged bilateral total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2017; 99 (24) 2085-2093
• 8 Bong MR, Di Cesare PE. Stiffness after total knee arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2004; 12 (03) 164-171
• 9 Issa K, Banerjee S, Kester MA, Khanuja HS, Delanois RE, Mont MA. The effect of timing of manipulation under anesthesia to improve range of motion and functional outcomes following total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2014; 96 (16) 1349-1357
• 10 Springer BD, Odum SM, Nagpal VS. , et al. Is socioeconomic status a risk factor for stiffness after total knee arthroplasty? A multicenter case-control study. Orthop Clin North Am 2012; 43 (05) e1-e7
• 11 Babis GC, Trousdale RT, Pagnano MW, Morrey BF. Poor outcomes of isolated tibial insert exchange and arthrolysis for the management of stiffness following total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2001; 83-A (10) 1534-1536