Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Objectives:

Implant failure leading to revision total joint arthroplasty can occur through a variety of different mechanisms which are typically associated with a soft tissue response adjacent to the implant that provide insight into the underlying etiology of implant failure. The objective of this study was to elucidate mechanisms of implant failure as they relate to histological classification and findings of adjacent periprosthetic tissue.

Methods:

Histological analysis of soft tissue adjacent to the implant was performed in 99 patients with an average age of 64 years old and grouped into four categories based on the study conducted by Morawietz et al.:

Type I (N = 47)

Wear particle induced type

Type II (N = 7)

Infectious type

Type III (N = 19)

Combined type I and II

Type IV (N = 26)

Indeterminant type

Modes of failure were categorized into five groupings based on the study conducted by Callies et al.: Instability (N = 35), Aseptic Loosening (N = 24), Hardware and/or Mechanical Failure (N = 15), Septic (N = 13), and Other failures (N = 12). We calculated odds ratios and conducted regression analysis to assess the relationship between modes of failure and histological findings as well as modes of failure and comorbidities.

Results:

Hardware/mechanical failure was independently correlated with histological findings of anucleate protein debris, histiocytes, Staphylococcus epidermidis, and synovitis. Furthermore, hardware/mechanical failure was independently correlated with osteosarcoma as a co-morbidity. Septic failure was associated with histological findings of Enterococcus, granulation tissue, and tissue necrosis as well as comorbidities of Crohn’s disease, deep venous thrombosis, lung disease, and rheumatoid arthritis. Infection was 5.8 times more likely to be associated with Type II histology. Aseptic loosening was associated with histologic findings of synovitis.

Conclusion:

Our findings support the existing literature on periprosthetic tissue analysis in revision total joint arthroplasty which may improve surgeon understanding of the patholophysiological mechanisms that contribute to implant failure and revision surgery.

Keywords

Orthopedics/rehabilitation/occupational therapy pathology periprosthetic pathology revision hip arthroplasty revision knee arthroplasty

Introduction

Total joint arthroplasty (TJA) is one of the most successful surgical procedures for pain relief and functional improvement in patients with arthritic joints. The number of surgical procedures for primary total joint replacement and subsequently revision total joint replacements continues to increase each year.¹ The mode of failure that leads to revision TJA varies from case to case though there are several predominant mechanisms.¹

Implants may fail or become painful due to implant wear with or without aseptic loosening, septic loosening or deep infection, mechanical failure, soft tissue imbalance or instability, and malalignment of components.² With these modes of failure, there is an associated soft tissue response adjacent to the implants that may occur to a significant degree resulting in an unfavorable surgical outcome.^3,4 In the past, microscopic analysis of the soft tissue response in patients with implant wear and/or aseptic component loosening has revealed a proliferative infiltration of macrophages with a foreign body reaction.^3,5–14 Many times, these modes of failure lead to revision of the artificial joint.

There are approximately 100 revision TJAs performed at our institution by one surgeon each year. Surgical indications include implant wear (with or without associated osteolysis), aseptic loosening of implants, septic loosening of the implant with deep joint infection, soft tissue imbalance and/or instability, and malalignment of implants. Implant designs that utilize alternative bearing surfaces such as metal-on-metal chrome cobalt articulations, ceramic-on-ceramic implants, and modifications of the standard polyethylene articular implants create distinct soft tissue responses adjacent to the implant.^1,11,14–16 At our institution, a patient presented for a revision surgery of a hip replacement and microscopic analysis of the adjacent soft tissue revealed a proliferative eosinophilic reaction consistent with an allergic response which prompted the current study of 99 patients who required arthroplasty revisions.

Our observational study was designed to evaluate the relationship between histological findings, mechanisms for failure, and co-morbidities in patients undergoing revision TJA. We hypothesized that specific histological findings and comorbidities would be associated with particular modes and/or categories of failure. These data may provide researchers and surgeons actionable information to guide future studies and patient management prior to implant revision.

Materials and methods

Population

Our study was a single-center prospective analysis of 99 soft tissue specimens over a 1-year time period from January 2016 to January 2017 that were debrided from areas adjacent to the implant of total joint revision, including synovial tissue. Inclusion criteria included all patients with an arthroplasty who underwent revision over the course of 1 year. There were no exclusion criteria within these patients. We did not conduct a power analysis for this study.

Tissue collection

The soft tissue specimens collected were debrided from bone and synovial tissue adjacent to the implants and sent to the pathologist for histological analysis, specimen culture, and hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) stain to categorize the data based on the modified scale from Morawietz et al. With respect to bacterial collection in culture, collection of these specimens within the implant–tissue interface is the most accurate method for pathological analysis. Collection of synovial and periprosthetic tissue is an established method used for histological classification.^10,17,18

Histological tissue classification

To better analyze the data set, histological findings were grouped in a simplified but similar manner to the classification of periprosthetic tissue format laid out originally by Morawietz et al.¹⁰ and validated by Bemer et al.¹⁷ Type I histological findings indicate the presence of one or multiple of the following criteria related to granulomatous inflammation: Anucleate Protein Debris, Calcification, Histiocytic Infiltrate, Fibrous Tissue, Foreign Body, Giant Cell, Histiocytes, Hyperplasia, and Macrophages with Abundant Cytoplasm (Epithelioid Cells).¹⁹ Type II histological findings indicate the presence of one or all of the following pathogenic organisms, including their clinical course: Diptheroids, Enterococcus, Granulation tissue (infection-related), Lymphocytic Infiltrate (without giant cell reaction), Soft-Tissue Necrosis, and Staphylococcus epidermidis.^10,17 Type III histological findings indicate a combination of Type I and Type II histology whereas Type IV histology is a histologic finding that does not meet Type I or Type II histology.

Mode of failure classification

Modes of failure were categorized into five groupings. Pain, Instability (Primary or Secondary), Aseptic Loosening, Hardware and/or Mechanical Failure (which included one or all of the following: Arthrofibrosis, Eccentric wear, Hardware failure, Malalignment, Periprosthetic fracture, Reduced function), Septic Failure, and Other failures. (Other failures include one or more of the following: Unspecified Knee Pain, Crepitus, Deteriorated bone, Conversion of Hemi-arthroplasty to Total, High Grade Aseptic Lymphocyte-Dominated Vasculitis-Associated Lesions (Pseudotumor), Wound dehiscence.)^20–22 Our failure classification was derived from an etiological study of revision total knee arthroplasties conducted by Calliess et al.²³

Statistical analysis

Medians and associated interquartile ranges were used to summarize demographic data. Frequencies and percentages were used to describe our sample in terms of operations, histology, and modes of failure (Table 1).

Table 1.

Description of study sample.

Variable	n (%)^a
N	99	(100.0%)
Demographics
Median months post-op (IQR)	73 months	(26–174 months)
Median age (IQR)	64 years	(54–73 years)
Operation
Total Hip Arthoplasty (THA)	39	(39.4%)
Total Knee Arthoplasty (TKA)	58	(58.6%)
Total Shoulder Arthroplasty (TSA)	2	(2%)
Location
Left	45	(45.5%)
Right	53	(53.5%)
Both	1	(1%)
Histologic findings
Type I^b	47	(47.5%)
Type II^c	7	(7.1%)
Type III^d	13	(13.1%)
Type IV^e	32	(32.3%)
Modes of failure
Hardware/mechanical failure	15	(15.2%)
Septic	13	(13.1%)
Instability	35	(35.4%)
Loosening	24	(24.2%)
Other	12	(12.1%)

IQR: interquartile range.

All data are n (%) unless otherwise specified.

Type I: Wear particle induced type: Anucleate protein debris, calcification, histiocytic infiltrate, fibrous tissue, foreign body, giant cell, histiocytes, hyperplasia, and macrophages with abundant cytoplasm (epithelioid cells).

Type II: Infectious type: Diptheroids, Enterococcus, granulation tissue (infection related), lymphocytic infiltrate without giant cell reaction, soft-tissue necrosis, and Staphylococcus epidermidis.

Type III: Combined Type 1 and 2.

Type IV: Indeterminant type.

Odds ratios

Odds ratios were calculated using logistic regression analysis to determine whether different histological categories were associated with increased odds of certain categories of failure (Table 2). Given the broad confidence intervals associated with these findings, the decision was made to perform further analysis to allow for a more complete picture of the data and its implications.

Table 2.

Odds ratios for modes of failure given histology type classification.

Odds ratio (95% confidence interval)
	Hardware/mechanical	Infection	Instability	Loosening	Other
Type I^a histology	1.26 (0.43–3.75) p = 0.673	0.33 (0.09–1.28) p = 0.109	1.17 (0.54–2.53) p = 0.688	1.55 (0.63–3.82) p = 0.342	0.55 (0.16–1.96) p = 0.358
Type II^b histology	0.94 (0.11–8.22) p = 0.955	5.84 (1.43–23.8) p = 0.014*	0.39 (0.05–3.26) p = 0.382	0.25 (0.01–4.56) p = 0.351	1.19 (0.13–10.6) p = 0.873
Type III^c histology	1.53 (0.44–5.34) p = 0.504	0.77 (0.16–3.74) p = 0.742	0.39 (0.11–1.43) p = 0.156	0.38 (0.83–1.77) p = 0.219	1.40 (0.35–5.69) p = 0.635
Type IV^d histology	0.18 (0.01–3.09) p = 0.235	0.467 (0.06–3.86) p = 0.480	1.16 (0.41–3.27) p = 0.781	1.87 (0.64–5.47) p = 0.255	1.12 (0.22–5.63) p = 0.891

Type III: Combined Type I and II.

Type IV: Indeterminant type.

p-value < 0.05.

Beta regression coefficients

Logistic regression analysis was performed for histological categories and all comorbidities to further delineate their correlation with individual modes (rather than categories) of failure. Subsequent regression analysis was performed to determine the correlation of individual histological findings and comorbidities with categories of failure. Independent histological findings and comorbidities correlating with individual modes of failure were also identified.

ANOVA

Correlation coefficients (R) and adjusted R² values were calculated using logistic regression analysis to assess the percent of variance in mode of failure categories that could be accounted for by each histological type and all comorbidities.

Results

Cohort descriptive statistics

Median time from primary TJA to histological sampling was 73 months, and median age of our cohort at time of revision TJA was 64 years. Knee arthroplasties accounted for 58.6% of cases, with hip and shoulder arthroplasties representing 39.4% and 2%, respectively (Table 1). Frequencies and percentages of histology types and modes of failure are presented in Table 1.

Histology

Odds ratios, beta regression coefficients

Only Infection was significantly associated with any histological category (p ⩽ 0.05). Patients with noted Infection had an odds ratio of 5.84 for Type II histology (Table 2). Anucleate protein debris, histiocytes, S. epidermidis, and synovitis were found to be significant, independent predictors of Hardware/Mechanical failure (Table 3). Enterococcus, granulation tissue, and necrosis were independent predictors of Septic failure. Synovitis was the only independent predictor of Loosening failure, and synovial cell hyperplasia was the only predictor of Other failure (Table 3). A more detailed breakdown of correlations between specific histological findings and specific modes of failure can be found in Table 4.

Table 3.

Independent histological findings—regression analysis of categorized modes of failure.

Correlation of histological findings with modes of failure*
	Unstandardized coefficients		Standardized coefficients	Significance
	B	SE	Beta	p-value
Hardware/mechanical
Anucleate protein debris	0.387	0.187	0.251	0.041
Histiocytes	0.512	0.227	0.238	0.027
Staphylococcus epidermidis	0.850	0.365	0.231	0.022
Synovitis	−0.206	0.083	−0.246	0.015
Infection
Enterococcus	0.919	0.317	0.360	0.005
Granulation tissue	0.415	0.126	0.297	0.001
Necrosis	0.409	0.193	0.195	0.036
Aseptic loosening
Synovitis	0.232	0.099	0.235	0.021
Other
Synovial cell hyperplasia	0.500	0.249	0.199	0.048

SE: standard error.

p ⩽ 0.05 = significant correlation between histologic finding and mode of failure. Beta = strength of correlation (Beta = 1 for two identical sets of values). Negative values indicate significant inverse relationship.

Only significant correlations (p ⩽ 0.05) shown.

Table 4.

Independent histological findings—regression analysis of independent modes of failure.

Correlation of histological findings with modes of failure*
	Unstandardized coefficients		Standardized coefficients	Significance
	B	SE	Beta	p-value
Arthrofibrosis
Fibrous tissue	0.159	0.060	0.309	0.009
Macrophages with abundant cytoplasm	−0.264	0.095	−0.386	0.007
Crepitus
Hyperplasia	0.062	0.030	0.236	0.038
Eccentric wear
Fibrohistiocytic	0.116	0.036	0.350	0.002
Lymphocytes	0.064	0.028	0.240	0.024
Infection
Enterococcus	0.909	0.314	0.378	0.005
Granulation tissue	0.324	0.124	0.246	0.011
Macrophages with abundant cytoplasm	−0.366	0.142	−0.377	0.011
Loosening
Necrosis	0.542	0.266	0.214	0.045
Synovitis	0.222	0.101	0.225	0.031
Fibrohistiocytic	0.472	0.153	0.327	0.003
Malalignment
Lymphocytes	0.064	0.028	0.240	0.024
Foreign body	−0.062	0.026	−0.258	0.021
Histiocytes	0.361	0.053	0.620	0.000
Pain
Synovial cell layer	0.522	0.251	0.208	0.041
Periprosthetic fracture
Staphylococcus epidermidis	0.985	0.145	0.575	0.000
Synovial cell layer	0.215	0.087	0.247	0.016
Reduced function
Anucleate protein debris	0.175	0.049	0.418	0.001
Atrophic synovial lining	0.500	0.052	0.703	<0.001
Wound dehiscence
Calcification	0.254	0.048	0.500	0.000
Inflammation	0.082	0.031	0.269	0.009

SE: standard error.

p ⩽ 0.05 = significant correlation between histologic and specific modes of failure. Beta = strength of correlation (Beta = 1 for two identical sets of values). Negative values indicate significant inverse relationship.

Only significant correlations (p ⩽ 0.05) shown.

Histology—ANOVA

Type II Histology accounted for 29.7% of variance in Periprosthetic Fractures and 13.0% in failure due to Infection. Type III Histology accounted for 6.8% of Malalignment failures. Type IV Histology accounted for 5.7% of failures with Deteriorated Bone or Pseudotumor (Table 5).

Table 5.

Histological categories and all comorbidities—ANOVA regression analysis of independent modes of failure.

Correlation of histological categories and all comorbidities with modes of failure
	R	Adjusted R²	p-value	% of variance
Eccentric wear
Comorbidities	0.694	0.322	<0.001	32.2
Infection
Type II histology	0.360	0.130	<0.001	13.0
Comorbidities	0.598	0.161	0.028	16.1
Malalignment
Type III histology	0.260	0.068	0.009	6.8
Periprosthetic fracture
Type II histology	0.182	0.33	<0.001	29.7
Deteriorated bone
Type IV histology	0.239	0.057	0.017	5.7
Pseudotumor
Type IV histology	0.239	0.057	0.017	5.7
Comorbidities	0.586	0.142	0.045	14.2

ANOVA: analysis of variance.

p ⩽ 0.05 = significant correlation between comorbidity, histology, and specific modes of failure.

R = strength of correlation (R = 1 for two identical sets of values). % Variance = percentage of variance in a mode of failure that can be accounted for by the given category of independent variables. (Example: Type 1 histology accounts for 11.2% of variance in failure by arthrofibrosis.)

This table only includes significant correlations (p ⩽ 0.05).

Comorbidities

Beta regression coefficients

Osteosarcoma was the only comorbidity that was an independent predictor of Hardware/Mechanical failure (Table 6). Crohn’s disease, deep venous thrombosis (DVT), lung disease, and rheumatoid arthritis were all significant, independent predictors of Septic failure (Table 6). A more detailed breakdown of correlations between specific comorbidities and specific modes of failure can be found in Table 7.

Table 6.

Independent comorbidities—regression analysis of categorized modes of failure.

Correlation of independent comorbidities with modes of failure
	Unstandardized coefficients		Standardized coefficients	Significance
	B	SE	Beta	p-value
Hardware/mechanical
Osteosarcoma	0.846	0.392	0.230	0.034
Septic
Crohn’s	0.949	0.415	0.264	0.025
Deep venous thrombosis	0.888	0.239	0.348	<0.001
Lung disease	0.812	0.351	0.226	0.023
Rheumatoid arthritis	0.204	0.099	0.209	0.043

SE: standard error.

p ⩽ 0.05 = significant correlation between specific comorbidities and mode of failure. Beta = strength of correlation (Beta = 1 for two identical sets of values). Negative values indicate significant inverse relationship.

This table only includes significant correlations (p ⩽ 0.05).

Table 7.

Independent comorbidities—regression analysis of independent modes of failure.

Correlation of independent comorbidities with modes of failure*
	Unstandardized coefficients		Standardized coefficients	Significance
	B	SE	Beta	p-value
Crepitus
Anemia	0.200	0.048	0.477	<0.001
Deteriorated bone
Rheumatoid arthritis	0.077	0.033	0.282	0.024
Hardware failure
Arthritis	0.219	0.081	0.315	0.008
Osteosarcoma	0.934	0.212	0.426	<0.001
Infection
Crohn’s	0.925	0.391	0.274	0.021
Deep venous thrombosis	0.905	0.226	0.377	<0.001
Lung disease	0.823	0.331	0.244	0.015
Pain
Anemia	−0.463	0.232	−0.224	0.049
Pseudotumor
Breast cancer	0.343	0.056	0.589	<0.001

SE: standard error.

p ⩽ 0.05 = significant correlation between comorbidity and specific modes of failure. Beta = strength of correlation (Beta = 1 for two identical sets of values). Negative values indicate significant inverse relationship.

Only significant correlations (p ⩽ 0.05) shown.

ANOVA

Comorbidities accounted for 32.2% of failures attributed to Eccentric Wear, 16.1% of failures via Infection, and 14.2% with Pseudotumor (Table 4).

Discussion

When evaluating possible pathologic changes associated with revision arthroplasty, histological analysis is a promising next step.^24,25 This study sought to determine whether periprosthetic histological findings during revision arthroplasty and/or comorbidities were associated with particular modes of prosthetic failure. Our results indicate that histological profiles do differ between mechanisms, and certain mechanisms were associated with particular pathological results and/or comorbidities.

Frequently, these associations seemed to fall into an intuitive pattern. Type I findings represent pathological analysis associated with foreign bodies—likely microscopic pieces from the aged prosthesis. Type I histology showed increased odds of failure by Instability and Loosening. The discovery that Instability and Loosening, as modes of failure, are associated with foreign body-based histology supports our current understanding of prosthetic breakdown. Interestingly, Type II histology (indicative of infection) was associated with decreased odds of failure by Instability and Loosening. While many of the connections found in our study were expected, some may warrant further investigation.

Synovium hyperplasia-pain/fracture

Our data showed a significant correlation between synovium hyperplasia and patient-reported knee pain. Pain is the most common indicator of implant failure.²⁶ When patients present with extra-articular pain post-implant, synovial hyperplasia should be considered within the differential diagnosis.²⁷ From a treatment perspective, synovial hyperplasia may be managed with arthroscopic debridement of the extensor mechanism of the hyperplastic synovium with modest pain-relieving effects.^26–28

Synovitis with TJA loosening

The proliferation of synovial and interfacial membranes is caused by over-expression of transforming growth factor-α (TGF-α), transforming growth factor-β (TGF-β), and epidermal growth factor (EGF).^29,30 All three of these cytokines have been found to stimulate bone resorption.^29,30 The combination of bone resorption and profibrotic nature of these growth factors is thought to cause loosening in TJA. In TJA implants with polyethene components, particle-induced synovitis is characterized by frond-like appearance on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).^31,32 Interestingly, our results contradict those of a case series which reported five patients (six knees) with persistent synovitis following cobalt-chromium total knee arthroplasty (TKA), none of whom demonstrated component loosening intraoperatively or on MRI.³³ The mechanism of failure in these cases appeared to be metal hypersensitivity rather than loosening.

Osteosarcoma and hardware failure

Osteosarcoma was the only comorbidity that independently predicted Hardware and/or Mechanical failure in our study. When compared to conventional patients receiving an arthroplasty, patients with osteosarcoma are reported to have a significantly higher rate of failure (25%–92%) with the mechanisms of failure demonstrating heterogeneity—ranging from infection to mechanical failure and aseptic loosening.³⁴ While the literature describing this specific phenomenon is limited, cancer patients are generally thought to have a lower tolerance for hardware.³⁵

Bone necrosis and loosening in the joint

The results of our study showed that osteolysis (bone necrosis) was associated with loosening of the joint. This aligns with previous findings in the literature related to component loosening in arthroplasties.^36,37

Lymphocytic infiltrate and arthroplasty malalignment

Although lymphocyte-driven hypersensitivity reactions have been implicated as a potential mechanism for arthroplasty failure, histopathologic findings of nickel lymphocyte transformation testing (LTT) have not confirmed TJA failure due to immune reaction.³⁸

Our data, however, showed a significant correlation of lymphocytic infiltrate with eccentric failure. As previously mentioned, microscopic analysis in one of our cases revealed a proliferative eosinophilic reaction to an alternate bearing articulation total hip replacement consistent with a lymphocyte-driven hypersensitivity reaction. Further research is needed to evaluate the potential confounders related to lymphocytic infiltrate that may drive a lymphocyte reaction in the area adjacent to the prosthesis.^16,38

Staphylococcus epidermidis and periprosthetic fractures

Our data indicated that S. epidermidis (coagulase-negative staphylococcus) was related to a periprosthetic fracture. Current literature has yet to elucidate the contribution of infection to implant loosening and its role in subsequent periprosthetic fracture.³⁹ However, microbiology literature suggests that osteoclastic lineage is favored over the osteoblast lineage via the RANK-RANKL mechanism during active infection with acute phase reactants and cytokines in the localized area of the prosthesis.⁴⁰ This promotes bone resorption and may destabilize the bone matrices.⁴⁰

Limitations and future implications

One challenge this study faced was limited power. With only 99 total participants, our data set could not be expected to definitively parse out the nuances between every group, yet we were still able to achieve significance for many correlations. While common modes of failure were reasonably represented in our study, a larger sample size is needed to assess those that occur less frequently. Related to modes of failure, the Other category is a heterogeneous catch all group established by Calliess et al. This classification is broad as in our study it included hemi to total conversion to symptomatic findings that resulted in revision surgery. Given how broad these classifications are within this group, there is heterogeneity that makes it difficult to analyze how this category influences histologic findings. Future research should focus on adding to the study by Calliess et al. to delineate this broad catch-all group further into more specific categories. Another limitation is in the fact that we did not conduct a power analysis given the variables we selected to analyze. This type of study requires a power analysis and a larger patient population in the future.

The separations between groups of both failure and pathological analysis are also imperfect. The modes of failure were grouped by similar mechanism, but similar does not mean exactly the same and overlap between the modes of failure groups was inevitable. The same could be said for the histological analysis. By using the histological grouping paradigm laid out by Morawietz et al.,¹⁰ we were able to organize the histological types. These were not exact matches. The pathology reports could include identifiers for multiple groups in a single patient, and each patient may qualify for multiple types of histological findings. Additionally, a cohort study of both revision and non-revision prostheses may allow for more direct comparisons.

Most of our findings related to histologic changes that occur between implant and bone interface in patients requiring arthroplasty revision support data seen within the literature. However, our findings regarding S. epidermidis on histology and its association with periprosthetic fracture was a finding that has not been well studied in vivo and the mechanism of infection and periprosthetic fractures still remains theoretical. Future studies evaluating periprosthetic–bone interface interventions (i.e. vancomycin-tobramycin impregnated cement) and the incidence of periprosthetic fractures in patients with adjacent bacterial colonization could provide meaningful data to a contentious intervention and devastating complication in arthroplasty.

Conclusion

As our patients live longer and are more active post-arthroplasty, it is increasingly necessary to understand the long-term implications of prostheses at a histological level. Many of our findings support the existing literature on periprosthetic tissue analysis in revision TJA and further validate potential pathological mechanisms of implant failure. The results of our study also add to domains in which the literature is limited, providing insights for future investigations by addressing the predictive value of pathological analysis and comorbidities in patients requiring TJA revisions. These data may also improve surgeon understanding of the mechanisms that contribute to implant failure and revision surgery.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Nancy Swinford, CCRC, Clinical Research Coordinator, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center for assisting with IRB submission.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Ethical approval

Ethical approval for this study was obtained from Lubbock/Odessa Institutional Review Board (#L12-048).

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects before the study.

ORCID iDs

Patrick Bettiol

Cameron Cox

References

Zagra

Maccario

Mondini

, et al. Treatment of failures related to articulation material in THA. A comprehensive algorithm of surgical options and open questions. Hip Int 2014; 24(Suppl. 10): S48–S57.

Bieger

Kappe

Fraitzl

, et al. The aetiology of total knee arthroplasty failure influences the improvement in knee function. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2013; 133(2): 237–241.

Margulies

DeBoyace

Parsons

, et al. Functionally deficient mesenchymal stem cells reside in the bone marrow niche with M2-macrophages and amyloid-beta protein adjacent to loose total joint implants. J Orthop Res 2015; 33(5): 615–624.

Miller

Yaar

Posnik

, et al. Reactive granular histiocytosis secondary to arthroplasty prosthesis: a novel reaction pattern. J Cutan Pathol 2012; 39(5): 558–561.

Eftekhar

Doty

Johnston

, et al. Prosthetic synovitis. Hip 1985; 1: 169–183.

Feldman

Lonner

Desai

, et al. The role of intraoperative frozen sections in revision total joint arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1995; 77(12): 1807–1813.

Goodman

Huie

Song

, et al. Cellular profile and cytokine production at prosthetic interfaces. Study of tissues retrieved from revised hip and knee replacements. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1998; 80(3): 531–539.

Howell

Jr Blunt

Doyle

, et al. In vivo surface wear mechanisms of femoral components of cemented total hip arthroplasties: the influence of wear mechanism on clinical outcome. J Arthroplasty 2004; 19(1): 88–101.

McCutchen

Collier

Mayor

. Osseointegration of titanium implants in total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1990; 261: 114–125.

10.

Morawietz

Classen

Schröder

, et al. Proposal for a histopathological consensus classification of the periprosthetic interface membrane. J Clin Pathol 2006; 59(6): 591–597.

11.

Najjar

Iost

Bigerelle

, et al. [Mechanisms of damage to metal-on-polyethylene articulating surfaces of total hip prostheses: influence of intra-articulate migration of metallic debris]. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot 2004; 90(8): 732–740.

12.

Punt

Austen

Cleutjens

, et al. Are periprosthetic tissue reactions observed after revision of total disc replacement comparable to the reactions observed after total hip or knee revision surgery? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2012; 37(2): 150–159.

13.

Tsaras

Maduka-Ezeh

Inwards

, et al. Utility of intraoperative frozen section histopathology in the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2012; 94(18): 1700–1711.

14.

Zysk

Gebhard

Plitz

, et al. Influence of orthopedic particulate biomaterials on inflammation and synovial microcirculation in the murine knee joint. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2004; 71(1): 108–115.

15.

Yang

Chen

, et al. Activation of synovial fibroblasts from patients at revision of their metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty. Part Fibre Toxicol 2020; 17(1): 42.

16.

Kwon

Thomas

Summer

, et al. Lymphocyte proliferation responses in patients with pseudotumors following metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty. J Orthop Res 2010; 28(4): 444–450.

17.

Bémer

Léger

Milin

, et al. Histopathological diagnosis of prosthetic joint infection: does a threshold of 23 neutrophils do better than classification of the periprosthetic membrane in a prospective multicenter study? J Clin Microbiol 2018; 56(9): e00536-18.

18.

Bori

Muñoz-Mahamud

Garcia

, et al. Interface membrane is the best sample for histological study to diagnose prosthetic joint infection. Mod Pathol 2011; 24(4): 579–584.

19.

Kumar

Abbas

Aster

. Robbins and Cotran pathologic basis for disease (ed. Kumar

). Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier, 2015.

20.

Hasegawa

Yoshida

Wakabayashi

, et al. Pseudotumor with dominant B-lymphocyte infiltration after metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty with a modular cup. J Arthroplasty 2012; 27(3): 493.e5–e7.

21.

Watters

Cardona

Menon

, et al. Aseptic lymphocyte-dominated vasculitis-associated lesion. Am J Clin Pathol 2010; 134(6): 886–893.

22.

Kurmis

Herman

McIntyre

, et al. Pseudotumors and high-grade aseptic lymphocyte-dominated vasculitis-associated lesions around total knee replacements identified at aseptic revision surgery: findings of a large-scale histologic review. J Arthroplasty 2019; 34(10): 2434–2438.

23.

Calliess

Ettinger

Hülsmann

, et al. Update on the etiology of revision TKA—evident trends in a retrospective survey of 1449 cases. Knee 2015; 22(3): 174–179.

24.

Gravius

Gebhard

Ackermann

, et al. [Analysis of 18F-FDG uptake pattern in PET for diagnosis of aseptic loosening versus prosthesis infection after total knee arthroplasty. A prospective pilot study]. Nuklearmedizin 2010; 49(3): 115–123.

25.

Schiavone Panni

Vasso

Cerciello

, et al. Metallosis following knee arthroplasty: a histological and immunohistochemical study. Int J Immunopathol Pharmacol 2011; 24(3): 711–719.

26.

Cottino

Rosso

Pastrone

, et al. Painful knee arthroplasty: current practice. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 2015; 8(4): 398–406.

27.

Dajani

Stuart

Dahm

, et al. Arthroscopic treatment of patellar clunk and synovial hyperplasia after total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2010; 25(1): 97–103.

28.

Encinas-Ullán

Rodríguez-Merchán

. Arthroscopic treatment of total knee arthroplasty complications. EFORT Open Rev 2019; 4(2): 33–43.

29.

Konttinen

Waris

, et al. Transforming growth factor-beta 1 and 2 in the synovial-like interface membrane between implant and bone in loosening of total hip arthroplasty. J Rheumatol 1997; 24(4): 694–701.

30.

, et al. Expression of epidermal growth factor and transforming growth factor alpha in interfacial membranes retrieved at revision total hip arthroplasty. Ann Rheum Dis 2000; 59(10): 822–827.

31.

Johnson

Sneag

, et al. Frondlike synovitis on MRI and correlation with polyethylene surface damage of total knee arthroplasty. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2017; 209(4): W231–W237.

32.

Sneag

Greditzer

IV , et al. Total knee arthroplasty: diagnostic accuracy of patterns of synovitis at MR imaging. Radiology 2016; 281(2): 499–506.

33.

Thakur

Ast

McGraw

, et al. Severe persistent synovitis after cobalt-chromium total knee arthroplasty requiring revision. Orthopedics 2013; 36(4): e520–e524.

34.

Grimer

Aydin

Wafa

, et al. Very long-term outcomes after endoprosthetic replacement for malignant tumours of bone. Bone Joint J 2016; 98-B(6): 857–864.

35.

Pedreira

Abu-Bonsrah

Karim Ahmed

, et al. Hardware failure in patients with metastatic cancer to the spine. J Clin Neurosci 2017; 45: 166–171.

36.

Bou Monsef

Schraut

Gonzalez

. Failed total knee arthroplasty. JBJS Rev 2014; 2(12): e1.

37.

Gallo

Goodman

Konttinen

, et al. Osteolysis around total knee arthroplasty: a review of pathogenetic mechanisms. Acta Biomater 2013; 9(9): 8046–8058.

38.

Yang

Dipane

, et al. Lymphocyte transformation testing (LTT) in cases of pain following total knee arthroplasty: little relationship to histopathologic findings and revision outcomes. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2019; 101(3): 257–264.

39.

Shah

Sheth

Gray

, et al. Periprosthetic fractures around loose femoral components. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2014; 22(8): 482–490.

40.

Wright

Nair

. Interaction of staphylococci with bone. Int J Med Microbiol 2010; 300(2–3): 193–204.

Pathological analysis of periprosthetic soft tissue and modes of failure in revision total joint arthroplasty patients

Abstract

Objectives:

Methods:

Results:

Conclusion:

Keywords

Introduction

Materials and methods

Population

Tissue collection

Histological tissue classification

Mode of failure classification

Statistical analysis

Odds ratios

Beta regression coefficients

ANOVA

Results

Cohort descriptive statistics

Histology

Odds ratios, beta regression coefficients

Histology—ANOVA

Comorbidities

Beta regression coefficients

ANOVA

Discussion

Synovium hyperplasia-pain/fracture

Synovitis with TJA loosening

Osteosarcoma and hardware failure

Bone necrosis and loosening in the joint

Lymphocytic infiltrate and arthroplasty malalignment

Staphylococcus epidermidis and periprosthetic fractures

Limitations and future implications

Conclusion

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Declaration of conflicting interests

Ethical approval

Funding

Informed consent

ORCID iDs

References