Download PDF
J Knee Surg
DOI: 10.1055/a-2411-0721
Special Focus Section

Does the Addition of a Tibial Stem Extender in Total Knee Arthroplasty Decrease Risk of Aseptic Loosening in Patients with Obesity? An Analysis from the American Joint Replacement Registry

Alexandra L. Hohmann 
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rothman Orthopaedic Institute, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
,
Alexander A. Linton
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rothman Orthopaedic Institute, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
,
Brooke R. Olin
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rothman Orthopaedic Institute, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
,
Gabriel L. Furey
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rothman Orthopaedic Institute, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
,
Isabella Zaniletti
2   Department of Registries and Data Science, Registry Analytics Institute, AAOS, Rosemont, Illinois
,
Ayushmita De
2   Department of Registries and Data Science, Registry Analytics Institute, AAOS, Rosemont, Illinois
,
Yale A. Fillingham
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rothman Orthopaedic Institute, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Mechanical loosening is a leading cause of failure of total knee arthroplasties (TKAs) for which obesity may be a risk factor. With rising rates of obesity and increasing incidence of TKA, the identification of factors to mitigate this cause of failure is necessary. The purpose of this study is to determine if the use of a tibial stem extender (TSE) decreases the risk of mechanical loosening in patients with obesity undergoing TKA. The American Joint Replacement Registry and linked Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services claims database were utilized to identify a patient cohort with a body mass index (BMI) of 30 kg/m2 or greater and age 65 years or older who underwent primary elective TKA between 2012 and 2021. Patients were divided into cohorts based on obesity class and TSE utilization. The estimated association of TSE use, BMI categories, and covariates with the risk of revisions for mechanical loosening in both unadjusted and adjusted settings was determined. Hazard ratios and their 95% confidence intervals for the risk of mechanical loosening were calculated. A total of 258,775 TKA cases were identified. A total of 538 of 257,194 (0.21%) patients who did not receive a TSE and one patient out of 1,581 (0.06%) with a TSE were revised for mechanical loosening. In adjusted analysis, TSE use was not protective against mechanical loosening and BMI > 40 was not a significant risk factor. Use of a TSE was not found to be protective against mechanical loosening in patients with obesity; however, analysis was limited by the small number of outcome events in the cohort. Further analysis with a larger cohort of patients with TSE and a longer follow-up time is necessary to corroborate this finding.

Keywords

tibial stem - total knee arthroplasty - obesity - mechanical loosening


Publication History

Received: 20 July 2024

Accepted: 04 September 2024

Accepted Manuscript online:
06 September 2024

Article published online:
16 October 2024

© 2024. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Anil U, Singh V, Schwarzkopf R. Diagnosis and detection of subtle aseptic loosening in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2022; 37 (08) 1494-1500
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Schiffner E, Latz D, Thelen S. et al. Aseptic loosening after THA and TKA - do gender, tobacco use and BMI have an impact on implant survival time?. J Orthop 2019; 16 (03) 269-272
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Postler A, Lützner C, Beyer F, Tille E, Lützner J. Analysis of total knee arthroplasty revision causes. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2018; 19 (01) 55
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Tarazi JM, Chen Z, Scuderi GR, Mont MA. The epidemiology of revision total knee arthroplasty. J Knee Surg 2021; 34 (13) 1396-1401
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Mohamed NS, Wilkie WA, Remily EA. et al. The rise of obesity among total knee arthroplasty patients. J Knee Surg 2022; 35 (01) 1-6
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Defining Adult Overweight & Obesity. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Published June 3, 2022. Accessed July 12, 2023 at: https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/basics/adult-defining.html#:~:text=If%20your%20BMI%20is%20less,falls%20within%20the%20obesity%20range
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Johnson CA, White CC, Kunkle BF, Eichinger JK, Friedman RJ. Effects of the obesity epidemic on total hip and knee arthroplasty demographics. J Arthroplasty 2021; 36 (09) 3097-3100
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Goh GS, Wells Z, Ong CB, Small I, Ciesielka KA, Fillingham YA. Does body mass index influence the outcomes and survivorship of modern cementless total knee arthroplasty?. J Arthroplasty 2022; 37 (11) 2171-2177
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Cherian JJ, Jauregui JJ, Banerjee S, Pierce T, Mont MA. What host factors affect aseptic loosening after THA and TKA?. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2015; 473 (08) 2700-2709
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Boyer B, Bordini B, Caputo D, Neri T, Stea S, Toni A. What are the influencing factors on hip and knee arthroplasty survival? Prospective cohort study on 63619 arthroplasties. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2019; 105 (07) 1251-1256
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Boyce L, Prasad A, Barrett M. et al. The outcomes of total knee arthroplasty in morbidly obese patients: a systematic review of the literature. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2019; 139 (04) 553-560
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Berend ME, Ritter MA, Hyldahl HC, Meding JB, Redelman R. Implant migration and failure in total knee arthroplasty is related to body mass index and tibial component size. J Arthroplasty 2008; 23 (6, Suppl 1): 104-109
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Abdel MP, Bonadurer III GF, Jennings MT, Hanssen AD. Increased aseptic tibial failures in patients with a BMI ≥35 and well-aligned total knee arthroplasties. J Arthroplasty 2015; 30 (12) 2181-2184
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Hinman AD, Prentice HA, Paxton EW, Kelly MP. Modular tibial stem use and risk of revision for aseptic loosening in cemented primary total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2021; 36 (05) 1577-1583
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Gopalakrishnan A, Hedley AK, Kester MA. Magnitude of cement-device interfacial stresses with and without tibial stemming: impact of BMI. J Knee Surg 2011; 24 (01) 3-8
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Osan JK, Harris IA, Harries D, Peng Y, Yates PJ, Jones CW. Stemmed tibial fixation for primary total knee arthroplasty in obese patients-a national registry study. J Arthroplasty 2024; 39 (02) 355-362
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Steere JT, Sobieraj MC, DeFrancesco CJ, Israelite CL, Nelson CL, Kamath AF. Prophylactic tibial stem fixation in the obese: comparative early results in primary total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Relat Res 2018; 30 (03) 227-233
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Mohammad MM, Elesh MM, El-Desouky II. Stemmed versus nonstemmed tibia in primary total knee arthroplasty: a similar pattern of aseptic tibial loosening in obese patients with moderate varus. 5-year outcomes of a randomized controlled trial. J Knee Surg 2023; 36 (12) 1266-1272
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Elcock KL, MacDonald DJ, Clement ND, Scott CEH. Total knee arthroplasty in patients with severe obesity: outcomes of standard keeled tibial components versus stemmed universal base plates. Knee Surg Relat Res 2023; 35 (01) 9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Fournier G, Yener C, Gaillard R, Kenney R, Lustig S, Servien E. Increased survival rate in extension stemmed TKA in obese patients at minimum 2 years follow-up. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2020; 28 (12) 3919-3925
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Elzohairy MM, Elaidy SM, Attia ME. A comparative prospective study between stemmed versus an unstemmed tibial component in total knee arthroplasty in obese patients. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 2021; 31 (04) 695-703
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Garceau SP, Harris NH, Felberbaum DL, Teo GM, Weinblatt AI, Long WJ. Reduced aseptic loosening with fully cemented short-stemmed tibial components in primary cemented total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2020; 35 (06) 1591-1594.e3
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis 1987; 40 (05) 373-383
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Schwartz AM, Farley KX, Guild GN, Bradbury Jr TL. Projections and epidemiology of revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States to 2030. J Arthroplasty 2020; 35 (6S): S79-S85
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Porter KR, Illgen RL, Springer BD. et al. Is American Joint Replacement Registry data representative of national data? A comparative analysis. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2022; 30 (01) e124-e130
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Annual Report 2022: The Ninth Annual Report of the AJRR on Hip and Knee Arthroplasty. Accessed November 3, 2023 at: https://connect.registryapps.net/hubfs/PDFs%20and%20PPTs/2022%20AJRR%20Annual%20Report.pdf
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Lawson EH, Louie R, Zingmond DS. et al. A comparison of clinical registry versus administrative claims data for reporting of 30-day surgical complications. Ann Surg 2012; 256 (06) 973-981
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Browne JA, Springer B, Spindler KP. Optimizing use of large databases in joint arthroplasty and orthopaedics. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2022; 104 (Suppl. 03) 28-32
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Heckmann ND, Glusenkamp NT. Linkage between databases in joint arthroplasty and orthopaedics: the way forward?. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2022; 104 (Suppl. 03) 33-38
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Wilson JM, Broida SE, Maradit-Kremers H. et al. Is the American Joint Replacement Registry able to correctly classify revision total knee arthroplasty procedural diagnoses?. J Arthroplasty 2023; 38 (6S): S32 , 35.e3
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Wilson JM, Broida SE, Kremers HM. et al. Can the American Joint Replacement Registry utilize administrative claims data to accurately classify revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) surgical diagnoses?. J Arthroplasty 2023; 38 (7S): S179 , 183.e2
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Springer BD, Mullen KP, Donnelly PC, Tucker K, Caton E, Huddleston JI. Is American Joint Replacement Registry data consistent with international survivorship in hip and knee arthroplasty? A comparative analysis. J Arthroplasty 2024; 39 (9S1): S46-S50
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Martin II DP, Rossi DM, Bukowski BR. et al. Mode of fixation and survivorship in primary total knee arthroplasty in the American Joint Replacement Registry. J Arthroplasty 2024; 39 (08) 2014-2021
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Nourie BO, Cozzarelli NF, Krueger CA, Donnelly PC, Fillingham YA. Antibiotic laden bone cement does not reduce acute periprosthetic joint infection risk in primary TKA. J Arthroplasty 2024; 39 (9S2): S229-S234
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Bernstein JA, Schaffler BC, Jimenez E, Rozell JC. Regional trends in unicondylar and patellofemoral knee arthroplasty: an analysis of the American Joint Replacement Registry. J Arthroplasty 2024; 39 (03) 625-631
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Koh CK, Zeng I, Ravi S, Zhu M, Vince KG, Young SW. Periprosthetic joint infection is the main cause of failure for modern knee arthroplasty: an analysis of 11,134 knees. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2017; 475 (09) 2194-2201
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar