ABSTRACT
Background: Acrylic bone cement is the most common method of fixation for primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Several studies have described good short-term outcomes; however, there have been reports of early failures due to tibial baseplate debonding at the implant-cement interface of The ATTUNE Knee System (DePuy Synthes, West Chester, PA). We examined the causes and rates of revision in patients who underwent TKA with this system to identify factors associated with this mode of early failure. Methods: A retrospective review of electronic health records between 2013 and 2018 identified all patients undergoing TKA with the ATTUNE Knee System with a minimum 2-year follow-up. Cause of revision, patient, implant, instrumentation, cement, and surgeon variables were collected. A descriptive analysis was used to identify characteristics of surgeon (fellowship-trained, surgical volume), implant (baseplate, bearing), and cement (brand, viscosity) that were associated with aseptic loosening. Results: A total of 668 patients representing 742 knees were identified. Eighteen (2.4%) required a revision surgery. Aseptic loosening was the leading cause of revision surgery (n = 10, 55.6%). All failures due to aseptic loosening involved debonding of the tibial implant-cement interface. A multivariate analysis identified low-volume surgeons (9.0%, P < .0001) and 1 specific brand of high-viscosity cement (14.3%, P < .0001) as risk factors for aseptic loosening. Conclusions: This study represents the largest nonregistry review of the original ATTUNE Knee System. Surgeon case volume and cement viscosity were factors associated with an increased rate of early failure due to tibial baseplate implant-cement interface debonding.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Spin is a form of reporting bias which suggests a treatment is beneficial despite a statistically nonsignificant difference in outcomes. Our purpose was to define the prevalence of spin within the abstracts of distal radius fracture (DRF) systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MA). We also sought to identify article characteristics that were more likely to contain spin. METHODS: We performed a SR of multiple databases to identify DRF SRs and MAs. Articles were screened and analyzed by 3 reviewers. We recorded article and journal characteristics including adherence to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, funding disclosures, methodologic quality (AMSTAR 2 instrument), impact factor, and country of origin. Presence of the 9 most severe types of spin in abstracts were recorded. Unadjusted odds ratios (ORs) were calculated to analyze the association between article characteristics and the presence of spin. RESULTS: A total of 112 articles were included. Spin was present in 46% of abstracts, with type 1 spin ("conclusions not supported by findings") most frequent (19%). Spin was present in 43% of abstracts in PRISMA-adhering journals compared to 49% in journals that did not (OR = 0.79, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.37-1.68). For articles originating from China, spin was present in 61% of abstracts compared to 39% of abstracts from other countries (OR = 2.55, 95% CI = 1.13-5.75). CONCLUSIONS: In addition to low article quality, there are high rates of spin within the abstracts of SRs and MAs related to treatment of DRF. Articles within journals that adhere to PRISMA do not appear to contain less spin.
