Background and purpose — Different marker-selection methods are applied to represent implant and tibial seg-ments in radiostereometric analysis (RSA) studies of total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Either a consistent set of markers throughout subsequent RSA examinations (“consistent-marker method”) is used or all available markers at each follow-up (“all-marker method”). The aim of this secondary analysis was to compare marker-selection methods on individual and group level TKA migration results. Methods — Data from a randomized RSA study with 72 patients was included. Tibial baseplate migration was evalu-ated at 3 months, 1, 2, and 5 years postoperatively with both marker-selection methods. Additionally, migration was calculated using 5 fictive points, either plotted based on the consistent set of markers or all available markers. Results — Migration could be calculated with both marker-selection methods for 248 examinations. The same prosthesis and bone markers (n = 136), different prosthesis markers (n = 71), different bone markers (n = 21), or different prosthesis and bone markers (n = 20) were used. The mean difference in maximum total point motion (MTPM) between all examinations was 0.02 mm, 95% confidence interval –0.26 to 0.31 mm. 5 implants were classified as continuously migrating with the consistent-marker method versus 6 implants (same 5 plus one additional implant) with the all-marker method. Using fictive points, fewer implants were classified as continuously migrating in both marker-selection methods. Differences between TKA groups in mean MTPM were comparable with both marker-selection methods, also when fictive points were used. Conclusion — Estimated group differences in mean MTPM were similar between marker-selection methods, but individual migration results differed. The latter has implications when classifying implants for estimated risk of future loosening.

@en

Aims The objective of this study was to compare the two-year migration and clinical outcomes of a new cementless hydroxyapatite (HA)-coated titanium acetabular shell with its previous version, which shared the same geometrical design but a different manufacturing process for applying the titanium surface. Methods Overall, 87 patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA) were randomized to either a Trident II HA or Trident HA shell, each cementless with clusterholes and HA-coating. All components were used in combination with a cemented Exeter V40 femoral stem. Implant migration was measured using radiostereometric analysis (RSA), with radiographs taken within two days of surgery (baseline), and at three, 12, and 24 months postoperatively. Proximal acetabular component migration was the primary outcome measure. Clinical scores and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were collected at each follow-up. Results Mean proximal migrations at three, 12, and 24 months were 0.08 mm (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.03 to 0.14), 0.11 mm (95% CI 0.06 to 0.16), and 0.14 mm (95% CI 0.09 to 0.20), respectively, in the Trident II HA group, versus 0.11 mm (95% CI 0.06 to 0.16), 0.12 mm (95% CI 0.07 to 0.17), and 0.14 mm (95% CI 0.09 to 0.19) in the Trident HA group (p = 0.875). No significant differences in translations or rotations between the two designs were found in any other direction. Clinical scores and PROMs were comparable between groups, except for an initially greater postoperative improvement in Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Symptoms score in the Trident HA group (p = 0.033). Conclusion The Trident II clusterhole HA shell has comparable migration with its predecessor, the Trident hemispherical HA cluster shell, suggesting a similar risk of long-term aseptic loosening. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(2):136–143.

@en

Background and purpose — Pooling data of studies evaluating total knee arthroplasty migration using radiostereometric analysis (RSA) may be compromised when the RSA method used would influence estimated differences between groups. We therefore reanalyzed a marker-based RSA study with model-based RSA to assess possible limitations of each RSA method, including insert micromotions in modular TKA and their effect on estimated group differences. Patients and methods — All patients had received a cemented Triathlon implant (Stryker, Mahwah, NJ, USA) with either an all-polyethylene (n = 29) or a metal-backed (n = 28) tibial component. The latter group was reanalyzed with model-based RSA. Precision of each RSA method was calculated using double examinations. Bland–Altman plots were constructed to determine the limits of agreement between the 2 RSA methods. Polyethylene insert micromotion was quantified by measuring migration with respect to the metal tray. Finally, analyses of the original study were repeated with the model-based RSA results. Results — Systematic differences were found in translations between marker-based and model-based RSA as a result of different reference origins being used for migration calculations. Micromotions of the polyethylene insert within the metal tray were negligibly small. Mean migration results were comparable between marker-based and model-based RSA when using the same reference origin, even though conclusions on individual patients may differ between RSA methods due to various types of measurement error (e.g., marker occlusion and model-fit inaccuracies). Interpretation — At least for the studied TKA design, pooling mean migration data of different RSA methods appears justified. For translations, however, adjustments should be made to correct for differences in reference origin. Migration patterns of individual patients may differ as a result of distinct types of measurement error.@en