Total Ankle Arthroplasty Polyethylene Wear Varies with Implant Type and Mode of Failure

Emily Teehan, Isabel Shaffrey, Joseph T. Nguyen, Mark D Wishman, Joaquin Palma Munita, Jensen Henry, Constantine Demetracopoulos
{"title":"Total Ankle Arthroplasty Polyethylene Wear Varies with Implant Type and Mode of Failure","authors":"Emily Teehan, Isabel Shaffrey, Joseph T. Nguyen, Mark D Wishman, Joaquin Palma Munita, Jensen Henry, Constantine Demetracopoulos","doi":"10.1177/2473011424S00095","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction/Purpose: Polyethylene wear is a concern for failure of any joint replacement, including total ankle arthroplasty (TAA). Heterogeneity in bearing surface design among current TAA systems show no clear solution to the competing objectives of function (constraint and kinematics) and wear (contact stresses). Literature has begun to investigate polyethylene wear and damage; however, a comprehensive understanding of polyethylene wear patterns in vivo and location remains unknown. This study aims to quantify the type and severity of differing damage modes on the polyethylene insert from retrieved TAA prostheses following reoperation or revision. We hypothesized that polyethylene wear amount will be greater in TAAs that underwent revisions rather than reoperation, and that wear would vary between implants based on extent of constraint. Methods: This is a retrospective study of TAA patients (2007-2021) who underwent revision (removal of polyethylene and tibial and/or talar components) or reoperation (removal of polyethylene only) following primary TAA with a symmetric bicondylar (SB) implant with more constraint or an asymmetric bicondylar (AB) implant with less constraint. Demographics and surgical data were recorded. Retrieved polyethylene inserts were examined microscopically to characterize wear patterns according to a standardized protocol. Polyethylenes were divided into four regions on both the articular and backside surfaces: 1) lateral anterior, 2) lateral posterior, 3) medial anterior, and 4) medial posterior. Each region was graded by two independent raters on a scale of 0-3 based on severity for each of the following damage modes: 1) burnishing, 2) pitting, 3) scratching, 4) third body debris, 5) abrasion, 6) surface deformation, and 7) delamination. We assessed associations between polyethylene wear pattern and severity with implant type, revision, and reoperation. Results: 55 TAAs underwent revision (n=28) or reoperation (n=27). 30 (55%) ankles had primary TAA with AB implants (Salto Talaris) and 25 (45%) with SB implants (Inbone/Infinity) (Table 1). SB cohort had a shorter mean in-body duration (time from polyethylene implant to polyethylene explant) versus AB cohort (P=0.011). SB cohort had significantly greater overall polyethylene damage severity (P=0.007) and greater damage severity in all articular regions versus AB (P≤0.035 for all). Burnishing was significantly greater in SB versus AB (P < 0.001). TAAs that underwent revision had significantly greater overall damage severity versus reoperation (P=0.005), with significantly greater damage severity on articular medial posterior (P=0.003), lateral anterior (P=0.001), and lateral posterior (P=0.004) regions. Scratching (P=0.005), pitting (P < 0.001), and third body debris (P=0.036) were significantly greater in revision TAAs. Conclusion: While damage modes between SB and AB total ankle implants were similar, ankles with primary SB implants exhibited greater overall polyethylene damage severity in comparison to AB implants, despite being in-body for a shorter duration. In accordance with existing literature for total knee arthroplasty, this may suggest increased polyethylene damage severity with increased constraint. Irrespective of time in-body, failure for revision was associated with greater polyethylene damage than reoperation. This study provides the foundation for additional analyses to investigate radiographic alignment, mode of failure, and, ultimately, the association between polyethylene wear, peri-implant cysts and lucency, and TAA failure. Table 1 Patient demographics, revision, reoperation, and polyethylene in-body duration for the two patient cohorts: Patients with primary TAA with a symmetric bicondylar (SB) implant with more constraint and patients with primary TAA with an asymmetric bicondylar (AB) implant with less constraint. Values are expressed as means ± standard deviation for continuous variables, and frequencies with percentages for categorical variables. P-values reflect chi-square analyses and t tests between the two cohorts for categorical variables and continuous variables, respectively. SB cohort had significantly lower percentage of females, higher body weight, and shorter in-body duration. There was no significant difference in reoperations and revisions between the two groups.","PeriodicalId":12429,"journal":{"name":"Foot & Ankle Orthopaedics","volume":"281 ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Foot & Ankle Orthopaedics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2473011424S00095","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction/Purpose: Polyethylene wear is a concern for failure of any joint replacement, including total ankle arthroplasty (TAA). Heterogeneity in bearing surface design among current TAA systems show no clear solution to the competing objectives of function (constraint and kinematics) and wear (contact stresses). Literature has begun to investigate polyethylene wear and damage; however, a comprehensive understanding of polyethylene wear patterns in vivo and location remains unknown. This study aims to quantify the type and severity of differing damage modes on the polyethylene insert from retrieved TAA prostheses following reoperation or revision. We hypothesized that polyethylene wear amount will be greater in TAAs that underwent revisions rather than reoperation, and that wear would vary between implants based on extent of constraint. Methods: This is a retrospective study of TAA patients (2007-2021) who underwent revision (removal of polyethylene and tibial and/or talar components) or reoperation (removal of polyethylene only) following primary TAA with a symmetric bicondylar (SB) implant with more constraint or an asymmetric bicondylar (AB) implant with less constraint. Demographics and surgical data were recorded. Retrieved polyethylene inserts were examined microscopically to characterize wear patterns according to a standardized protocol. Polyethylenes were divided into four regions on both the articular and backside surfaces: 1) lateral anterior, 2) lateral posterior, 3) medial anterior, and 4) medial posterior. Each region was graded by two independent raters on a scale of 0-3 based on severity for each of the following damage modes: 1) burnishing, 2) pitting, 3) scratching, 4) third body debris, 5) abrasion, 6) surface deformation, and 7) delamination. We assessed associations between polyethylene wear pattern and severity with implant type, revision, and reoperation. Results: 55 TAAs underwent revision (n=28) or reoperation (n=27). 30 (55%) ankles had primary TAA with AB implants (Salto Talaris) and 25 (45%) with SB implants (Inbone/Infinity) (Table 1). SB cohort had a shorter mean in-body duration (time from polyethylene implant to polyethylene explant) versus AB cohort (P=0.011). SB cohort had significantly greater overall polyethylene damage severity (P=0.007) and greater damage severity in all articular regions versus AB (P≤0.035 for all). Burnishing was significantly greater in SB versus AB (P < 0.001). TAAs that underwent revision had significantly greater overall damage severity versus reoperation (P=0.005), with significantly greater damage severity on articular medial posterior (P=0.003), lateral anterior (P=0.001), and lateral posterior (P=0.004) regions. Scratching (P=0.005), pitting (P < 0.001), and third body debris (P=0.036) were significantly greater in revision TAAs. Conclusion: While damage modes between SB and AB total ankle implants were similar, ankles with primary SB implants exhibited greater overall polyethylene damage severity in comparison to AB implants, despite being in-body for a shorter duration. In accordance with existing literature for total knee arthroplasty, this may suggest increased polyethylene damage severity with increased constraint. Irrespective of time in-body, failure for revision was associated with greater polyethylene damage than reoperation. This study provides the foundation for additional analyses to investigate radiographic alignment, mode of failure, and, ultimately, the association between polyethylene wear, peri-implant cysts and lucency, and TAA failure. Table 1 Patient demographics, revision, reoperation, and polyethylene in-body duration for the two patient cohorts: Patients with primary TAA with a symmetric bicondylar (SB) implant with more constraint and patients with primary TAA with an asymmetric bicondylar (AB) implant with less constraint. Values are expressed as means ± standard deviation for continuous variables, and frequencies with percentages for categorical variables. P-values reflect chi-square analyses and t tests between the two cohorts for categorical variables and continuous variables, respectively. SB cohort had significantly lower percentage of females, higher body weight, and shorter in-body duration. There was no significant difference in reoperations and revisions between the two groups.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
全踝关节成形术聚乙烯磨损因植入物类型和故障模式而异
导言/目的:聚乙烯磨损是包括全踝关节置换术(TAA)在内的任何关节置换术失败的一个隐患。目前 TAA 系统的轴承表面设计各不相同,对于功能(约束和运动学)和磨损(接触应力)这两个相互竞争的目标没有明确的解决方案。已有文献开始对聚乙烯磨损和损坏进行研究,但对聚乙烯在体内的磨损模式和位置的全面了解仍是未知数。本研究旨在量化再手术或翻修后取回的 TAA 假体聚乙烯内衬上不同损伤模式的类型和严重程度。我们的假设是,接受翻修手术而非再手术的 TAA 的聚乙烯磨损量会更大,而且不同植入物的磨损程度会因限制程度而异。方法:这是一项回顾性研究,研究对象是(2007-2021 年)接受翻修(移除聚乙烯和胫骨及/或距骨组件)或再次手术(仅移除聚乙烯)的 TAA 患者,这些患者在初次 TAA 后使用了约束性较强的对称双髁(SB)植入物或约束性较弱的非对称双髁(AB)植入物。记录了人口统计学和手术数据。对取出的聚乙烯植入物进行显微镜检查,根据标准化方案确定磨损模式。聚乙烯在关节面和背面被分为四个区域:1)外侧前方;2)外侧后方;3)内侧前方;4)内侧后方。每个区域由两名独立的评分员根据以下每种损坏模式的严重程度按 0-3 级评分:1)抛光;2)点蚀;3)划痕;4)第三体碎片;5)磨损;6)表面变形;7)分层。我们评估了聚乙烯磨损模式和严重程度与种植体类型、翻修和再手术之间的关联。结果:55 例 TAA 接受了翻修(28 例)或再次手术(27 例)。30个(55%)踝关节患有原发性TAA,使用的是AB种植体(Salto Talaris),25个(45%)使用的是SB种植体(Inbone/Infinity)(表1)。与 AB 组相比,SB 组的平均体内持续时间(从聚乙烯植入到聚乙烯取出的时间)更短(P=0.011)。与 AB 组相比,SB 组的总体聚乙烯损伤严重程度明显更高(P=0.007),所有关节区域的损伤严重程度更高(P≤0.035)。SB与AB相比,烧灼程度明显更高(P<0.001)。与再次手术相比,接受翻修的TAAs的总体损伤严重程度明显更高(P=0.005),其中关节内侧后方(P=0.003)、外侧前方(P=0.001)和外侧后方(P=0.004)区域的损伤严重程度明显更高。翻修型 TAA 的刮伤(P=0.005)、点状损伤(P < 0.001)和第三体碎片(P=0.036)显著增加。结论:虽然 SB 和 AB 全踝关节假体的损伤模式相似,但与 AB 假体相比,初次使用 SB 假体的踝关节表现出更严重的整体聚乙烯损伤,尽管植入体内的时间更短。根据现有的全膝关节置换术文献,这可能表明随着约束的增加,聚乙烯损坏的严重程度也会增加。无论植入时间长短,翻修失败与聚乙烯损伤程度高于再次手术有关。本研究为其他分析提供了基础,这些分析旨在研究放射学排列、失败模式,并最终研究聚乙烯磨损、种植体周围囊肿和通明与 TAA 失败之间的关联。表 1 两组患者的人口统计学特征、翻修、再次手术和聚乙烯体内持续时间:使用约束性较强的对称双髁(SB)种植体的原发性 TAA 患者和使用约束性较弱的非对称双髁(AB)种植体的原发性 TAA 患者。连续变量以均值 ± 标准差表示,分类变量以频率和百分比表示。P值分别反映了两个队列中分类变量和连续变量的卡方分析和t检验。SB 组群的女性比例明显较低,体重较高,体内持续时间较短。两组在再手术和翻修方面无明显差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Foot & Ankle Orthopaedics
Foot & Ankle Orthopaedics Medicine-Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1152
期刊最新文献
3D Analysis of Metatarsal Torsion by Computed Tomography in Normal, Hallux Valgus, and Hallux Rigidus Feet. A Retrospective Case Series of Single-Screw vs Dual-Screw Fixation for Treatment of Medial Malleolus Fractures. Long-term Outcomes After Total Ankle Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review. Reduction Quality in Posterior Malleolar Fractures Using a Modified Posteromedial Ankle Approach. Influence of Social Deprivation on Patient-Reported Outcomes in Foot and Ankle Patients.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1