Abstract
Abstract
Objective
Up to 20% of patients can remain dissatisfied following TKR. A proportion of TKRs will need early revision with aseptic loosening the most common. The ATTUNE TKR was introduced in 2011 as successor to its predicate design The PFC Sigma (DePuy Synthes, Warsaw, In). However, following reports of early failures of the tibial component there have been ongoing concerns of increased loosening rates with the ATTUNE TKR. In 2017 a redesigned tibial baseplate (S+) was introduced, which included cement pockets and an increased surface roughness to improve cement bonding. Given the concerns of early tibial loosening with the ATTUNE knee system, this study aimed to compare revision rates and those specific to aseptic loosening of the ATTUNE implant in comparison to an established predicate as well as other implant designs used in a high-volume arthroplasty centre.
Methods
The Attune TKR was introduced to our unit in December 2011. Prior to this we routinely used a predicate design with an excellent long-term track record (PFC Sigma) which remains in use. In addition, other designs were available and used as per surgeon preference. Using a prospectively maintained database, we identified 10,202 patients who underwent primary cemented TKR at our institution between 01/04/2003–31/03/2022 with a minimum of 1 year follow-up (Mean 8.4years, range 1–20years): 1) 2406 with ATTUNE TKR (of which 557 were S+) 2) 4652 with PFC TKR 3) 3154 with other cemented designs. All implants were cemented using high viscosity cement. The primary outcome measures were all-cause revision, revision for aseptic loosening, and revision for tibial loosening. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and Cox regression models were used to compare the primary outcomes between groups. Matched cohorts were selected from the ATTUNE subsets (original and S+) and PFC groups using the nearest neighbor method for radiographic analysis. Radiographs were assessed to compare the presence of radiolucent lines in the Attune S+, standard Attune, and PFC implants.
Results
At a mean of 8.4 years follow-up, 308 implants underwent revision equating to 3.58 revisions per 1000 implant-years. The lowest risk of revision was noted in the ATTUNE cohort with 2.98 per 1000-implant-years where the PFC and All Other Implant groups were 3.15 and 4.4 respectively. Aseptic loosing was the most common cause for revision across all cemented implants with 76% (65/88) of involving loosening of the tibia. Survival analysis comparing the ATTUNE cohort to the PFC and All Other Cemented Implant cohorts showed no significant differences for: all-cause revision, aseptic loosening, or tibial loosening (p=0.15,0.77,0.47). Radiolucent lines were detected in 4.6%, 5.8%, and 5.0% of the ATTUNE S+, standard ATTUNE, and PFC groups respectively. These differences were not significant.
Conclusion
This study represents the largest non-registry review of the original and S+ ATTUNE TKR in comparison to its predicate design as well as other cemented implants. There appears to be no significant increased revision rate for all-cause revision or aseptic loosening. Radiographic analysis also showed no significant difference in peri-implant radiolucency. It appears that concerns of early loosening may be unfounded.
Declaration of Interest
(a) fully declare any financial or other potential conflict of interest
