Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

No Clinical or Radiographic Differences Between Cemented Cobalt–Chromium and Titanium–Niobium Nitride Mobile-Bearing Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Indian Journal of Orthopaedics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

This study aimed to compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of patients with positive patch tests undergoing a medial mobile-bearing titanium–niobium nitride (TiNbN) unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) to patients undergoing standard UKA (cobalt–chromium [CoCr] implants).

Methods

Two successive groups of patients, amounting to a total of 246 individuals, who received Oxford (Zimmer-Biomet, Warsaw, Indiana, USA) UKA were included. The first group was composed of a series of 203 consecutive standard CoCr UKAs (Standard Group), while the second group comprised 43 consecutive hypoallergenic TiNbN UKAs (HA group). The patients of the second group had a positive epicutaneous patch test result for metals. Each patient was evaluated using the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) and Knee Society Score (KSS) a day prior to the surgery (T0) and at two consecutive follow-ups, namely T1 (minimum follow-up of 12 months) and T2 (minimum follow-up of 34 months). Radiographic measurements were performed at the final follow-up (T2).

Results

No statistical differences were noted between the two groups regarding demographic data (p > 0.05). No clinical or radiographic differences were found between the HA and standard groups at any follow-up (p > 0.05). A statistically significant improvement was found at any follow-up for both OKS and KSS (p < 0.05).

Conclusions

No clinical or radiographic differences between the hypoallergenic and standard cobalt–chromium groups at any follow-up were found, with a clinically significant improvement being experienced by both groups during the entire follow-up.

Level of evidence

Level II—comparative prospective study.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Availability of data and materials

Raw data have been submitted as supplementary material to the Journal.

References

  1. Stempin, R., Kaczmarek, W., Stempin, K., & Dutka, J. (2017). Midterm results of cementless and cemented unicondylar knee arthroplasty with mobile meniscal bearing: A prospective cohort study. The Open Orthopaedics Journal, 11, 1173–1178. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874325001711011173

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Kendrick, B. J., Kaptein, B. L., Valstar, E. R., Gill, H. S., Jackson, W. F., Dodd, C. A., Price, A. J., & Murray, D. W. (2015). Cemented versus cementless Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty using radiostereometric analysis: A randomised controlled trial. The Bone & Joint Journal., 97-B(2), 185–191. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.97B2.34331

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Pacheco, K. A. (2015). Allergy to surgical implants. The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: In Practice, 3(5), 683–695. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaip.2015.07.011

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bao, W., He, Y., Fan, Y., & Liao, Y. (2018). Metal allergy in total-joint arthroplasty: Case report and literature review. Medicine (Baltimore), 97(38), e12475. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000012475

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Desai, M. M., Shah, K. A., Mohapatra, A., & Patel, D. C. (2019). Prevalence of metal hypersensitivity in total knee replacement. Journal of Orthopaedics, 16(6), 468–472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jor.2019.05.005

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Bozic, K. J., Kamath, A. F., Ong, K., Lau, E., Kurtz, S., Chan, V., Vail, T. P., Rubash, H., & Berry, D. J. (2015). Comparative epidemiology of revision arthroplasty: Failed THA poses greater clinical and economic burdens than failed TKA. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 473(6), 2131–2138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-014-4078-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Vasso, M., Corona, K., D’Apolito, R., Mazzitelli, G., & Panni, A. S. (2017). Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: Modes of failure and conversion to total knee arthroplasty. Joints, 5(1), 44–50. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0037-1601414

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Mittal, A., Meshram, P., Kim, W. H., & Kim, T. K. (2020). Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, an enigma, and the ten enigmas of medial UKA. Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, 21(1), 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s10195-020-00551-x

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Mitchelson, A. J., Wilson, C. J., Mihalko, W. M., Grupp, T. M., Manning, B. T., Dennis, D. A., Goodman, S. B., Tzeng, T. H., Vasdev, S., & Saleh, K. J. (2015). Biomaterial hypersensitivity: Is it real? Supportive evidence and approach considerations for metal allergic patients following total knee arthroplasty. BioMed Research International, 2015, 137287. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/137287

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Lachiewicz, P. F., Watters, T. S., & Jacobs, J. J. (2016). Metal hypersensitivity and total knee arthroplasty. Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 24(2), 106–112. https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOS-D-14-00290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. D’Ambrosi, R., Nuara, A., Mariani, I., Di Feo, F., Ursino, N., & Hirschmann, M. (2021). Titanium niobium nitride mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty results in good to excellent clinical and radiographic outcomes in metal allergy patients with medial knee osteoarthritis. Journal of Arthroplasty, 36(1), 140-147.e2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2020.07.028

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Schäfer, T., Böhler, E., Ruhdorfer, S., Weigl, L., Wessner, D., Filipiak, B., Wichmann, H. E., & Ring, J. (2001). Epidemiology of contact allergy in adults. Allergy, 56(12), 1192–1196. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1398-9995.2001.00086.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Faschingbauer, M., Renner, L., & Boettner, F. (2017). Allergy in total knee replacement. Does it exist?: Review article. HSS Journal, 13(1), 12–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11420-016-9514-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Atanaskova Mesinkovska, N., Tellez, A., Molina, L., Honari, G., Sood, A., Barsoum, W., & Taylor, J. S. (2012). The effect of patch testing on surgical practices and outcomes in orthopedic patients with metal implants. Archives of Dermatology, 148(6), 687–693. https://doi.org/10.1001/archdermatol.2011.2561

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Eben, R., Dietrich, K. A., Nerz, C., Schneider, S., Schuh, A., Banke, I. J., Mazoochian, F., & Thomas, P. (2010). Kontaktallergieraten gegen Metalle und Knochenzementbestandteile bei Patienten mit Endoprothesenunverträglichkeit [Contact allergy to metals and bone cement components in patients with intolerance of arthroplasty]. Deutsche Medizinische Wochenschrift, 135(28–29), 1418–1422. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0030-1262426

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Thakur, R. R., Ast, M. P., McGraw, M., Bostrom, M. P., Rodriguez, J. A., & Parks, M. L. (2013). Severe persistent synovitis after cobalt-chromium total knee arthroplasty requiring revision. Orthopedics, 36(4), e520-524. https://doi.org/10.3928/01477447-20130327-34

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Thomsen, M., Rozak, M., & Thomas, P. (2011). Pain in a chromium-allergic patient with total knee arthroplasty: Disappearance of symptoms after revision with a special surface-coated TKA—A case report. Acta Orthopaedica, 82(3), 386–388. https://doi.org/10.3109/17453674.2011.579521

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Verma, S. B., Mody, B., & Gawkrodger, D. J. (2006). Dermatitis on the knee following knee replacement: A minority of cases show contact allergy to chromate, cobalt or nickel but a causal association is unproven. Contact Dermatitis, 54(4), 228–229. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0105-1873.2006.0775o.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Ragone, V., Canciani, E., Biffi, C. A., D’Ambrosi, R., Sanvito, R., Dellavia, C., & Galliera, E. (2019). CoCrMo alloys ions release behavior by TiNbN coating: An in vitro study. Biomedical Microdevices, 21(3), 61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10544-019-0417-6

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Granchi, D., Cenni, E., Giunti, A., & Baldini, N. (2012). Metal hypersensitivity testing in patients undergoing joint replacement: A systematic review. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. British Volume, 94(8), 1126–1134. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.94B8.28135

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Kitagawa, A., Chin, T., & Tsumura, N. (2013). Iguchi T (2013) Metal sensitivity in patients before and after total knee arthroplasty (TKA): Comparison between ceramic surfaced oxidized zirconium and cobalt-chromium implants. Hypersensitivity, 1, 1–3. https://doi.org/10.7243/2052-594X-1-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Thienpont, E. (2015). Titanium niobium nitride knee implants are not inferior to chrome cobalt components for primary total knee arthroplasty. Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, 135(12), 1749–1754. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-015-2320-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Thienpont, E., & Berger, Y. (2013). No allergic reaction after TKA in a chrome-cobalt-nickel-sensitive patient: Case report and review of the literature. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy, 21(3), 636–640. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-012-2000-z

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. van Hove, R. P., Brohet, R. M., van Royen, B. J., & Nolte, P. A. (2015). No clinical benefit of titanium nitride coating in cementless mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy, 23(6), 1833–1840. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-014-3359-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. von Elm, E., Altman, D. G., Egger, M., Pocock, S. J., Gøtzsche, P. C., Vandenbroucke, J. P., & STROBE Initiative. (2008). The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: Guidelines for reporting observational studies. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 61(4), 344–349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.11.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Fransway, A. F., Zug, K. A., Belsito, D. V., Deleo, V. A., Fowler, J. F., Jr., Maibach, H. I., Marks, J. G., Mathias, C. G., Pratt, M. D., Rietschel, R. L., Sasseville, D., Storrs, F. J., Taylor, J. S., Warshaw, E. M., Dekoven, J., & Zirwas, M. (2013). North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch test results for 2007–2008. Dermatitis, 24(1), 10–21. https://doi.org/10.1097/DER.0b013e318277ca50

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Dickel, H., Geier, J., Kreft, B., Pfützner, W., & Kuss, O. (2017). Comparing reliabilities of strip and conventional patch testing. Contact Dermatitis, 76(6), 342–349. https://doi.org/10.1111/cod.12758

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Zhang, Q., Zhang, Q., Guo, W., Liu, Z., Cheng, L., Yue, D., & Zhang, N. (2014). The learning curve for minimally invasive Oxford phase 3 unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: Cumulative summation test for learning curve (LC-CUSUM). Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, 9, 81. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-014-0081-8

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Hamilton, T. W., Pandit, H. G., Lombardi, A. V., Adams, J. B., Oosthuizen, C. R., Clavé, A., Dodd, C. A., Berend, K. R., & Murray, D. W. (2016). Radiological decision aid to determine suitability for medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: development and preliminary validation. The Bone & Joint Journal, 98-B(10 Supple B), 3–10. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.98B10.BJJ-2016-0432.R1

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Quah, C., Holmes, D., Khan, T., Cockshott, S., Lewis, J., & Stephen, A. (2018). The variability in Oxford hip and knee scores in the preoperative period: Is there an ideal time to score? Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 100(1), 16–20. https://doi.org/10.1308/rcsann.2017.0090

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Insall, J. N., Dorr, L. D., Scott, R. D., & Scott, W. N. (1989). Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 248, 13–14.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Asif, S., & Choon, D. S. (2005). Midterm results of cemented Press Fit Condylar Sigma total knee arthroplasty system. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery (Hong Kong), 13(3), 280–284. https://doi.org/10.1177/230949900501300311

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Mujika, K. M., Méndez, J. A. J., & de Miguel, A. F. (2018). Advantages and disadvantages in image processing with free software in radiology. Journal of Medical Systems, 42(3), 36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10916-017-0888-z

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Price, A. J., & Svard, U. (2011). A second decade lifetable survival analysis of the Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 469(1), 174–179. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-010-1506-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Beyer, F., Lützner, C., Kirschner, S., & Lützner, J. (2016). Midterm results after coated and uncoated TKA: A randomized controlled study. Orthopedics, 39(3 Suppl), S13-17. https://doi.org/10.3928/01477447-20160509-10

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Thomas, P., Hisgen, P., Kiefer, H., Schmerwitz, U., Ottersbach, A., Albrecht, D., Summer, B., & Schinkel, C. (2018). Blood cytokine pattern and clinical outcome in knee arthroplasty patients: Comparative analysis 5 years after standard versus “hypoallergenic” surface coated prosthesis implantation. Acta Orthopaedica, 89(6), 646–651. https://doi.org/10.1080/17453674.2018.1518802

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Zondervan, R. L., Vaux, J. J., Blackmer, M. J., Brazier, B. G., & Taunt, C. J., Jr. (2019). Improved outcomes in patients with positive metal sensitivity following revision total knee arthroplasty. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, 14(1), 182. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-019-1228-4

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Richards, L. J., Streifel, A., & Rodrigues, J. M. (2019). Utility of patch testing and lymphocyte transformation testing in the evaluation of metal allergy in patients with orthopedic implants. Cureus, 11(9), e5761. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.5761

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Frigerio, E., Pigatto, P. D., Guzzi, G., & Altomare, G. (2011). Metal sensitivity in patients with orthopaedic implants: A prospective study. Contact Dermatitis, 64(5), 273–279. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0536.2011.01886.x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Münch, H. J., Jacobsen, S. S., Olesen, J. T., Menné, T., Søballe, K., Johansen, J. D., & Thyssen, J. P. (2015). The association between metal allergy, total knee arthroplasty, and revision: Study based on the Danish Knee Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthopaedica, 86(3), 378–383. https://doi.org/10.3109/17453674.2014.999614

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Middleton, S., & Toms, A. (2016). Allergy in total knee arthroplasty: A review of the facts. The Bone & Joint Journal, 98(4), 437–441. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.98B4.36767

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Walker, T., Rutkowski, L., Innmann, M., Panzram, B., Herre, J., Gotterbarm, T., Aldinger, P. R., & Merle, C. (2019). Unicondylar knee arthroplasty using cobalt-chromium implants in patients with self-reported cutaneous metal hypersensitivity. The Bone & Joint Journal, 101-B(2), 227–232. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.101B2.BJJ-2018-0778.R1

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Saccomanno, M. F., Sircana, G., Masci, G., Cazzato, G., Florio, M., Capasso, L., Passiatore, M., Autore, G., Maccauro, G., & Pola, E. (2019). Allergy in total knee replacement surgery: Is it a real problem? World Journal of Orthopedics, 10(2), 63–70. https://doi.org/10.5312/wjo.v10.i2.63

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, Via Galeazzi 4, 20161, Milan, Italy

    Riccardo D’Ambrosi, Nicola Ursino & Giuseppe Maria Peretti

  2. Department of Orthopedics, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Forchstrasse 340, 8008, Zurich, Switzerland

    Rafael Loucas & Marios Loucas

  3. Dipartimento di Scienze Biomediche per la Salute, Università degli Studi di Milano, Via Mangiagalli 31, 20133, Milan, Italy

    Riccardo Giorgino & Giuseppe Maria Peretti

Authors
  1. Riccardo D’Ambrosi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rafael Loucas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marios Loucas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Riccardo Giorgino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Nicola Ursino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Giuseppe Maria Peretti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

RD’A: writing, data analysis, patients evaluation, surgery, and final revision. RL: data analysis, writing, and statistical analysis. ML: data analysis, writing, and statistical analysis. RG: writing, data analysis, and revision. NU: surgery and final revision. GMP: final revision.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Riccardo D’Ambrosi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

Permission for the study was obtained from the local ethical committee.

Consent to participate

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Consent to publish

All authors consent to the publication of the manuscript.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (XLSX 43 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

D’Ambrosi, R., Loucas, R., Loucas, M. et al. No Clinical or Radiographic Differences Between Cemented Cobalt–Chromium and Titanium–Niobium Nitride Mobile-Bearing Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty. JOIO 55, 1195–1201 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43465-021-00486-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43465-021-00486-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation