Ultracongruent Polyethylene Liners Do Not Affect Survival of Total Knee Arthroplasty for Valgus Deformity.

Abstract

Valgus knee deformity is observed in nearly 10% of patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The degree of polyethylene constraint required to balance a valgus knee remains controversial, and historically, posterior-stabilized (PS) designs have been favored. This study evaluated the survivorship of TKA done in valgus knees based on implant design and specifically compared posterior-stabilized (PS) and ultracongruent (UC) liners. A total of 549 primary TKAs performed on valgus knees by fellowship-trained arthroplasty surgeons from 2013 to 2019 were reviewed. Demographics, comorbidities, degrees of preoperative deformity, implants used, and all-cause revisions until final follow-up were recorded. Cox regression analyses evaluated survival to all-cause revision in each cohort. The mean follow-up was 4.9 years (range, 2 to 9). There were 403 UC liners compared to 146 PS liners. There was no difference in patient age (68 versus 67 years; P = .30), body mass index (30.9 versus 30.4; P = .36), or degree of deformity (8.6 versus 8.8 degrees; P = .75) between the cohorts. At final follow-up, there were 5 revisions in the PS cohort (3.4%) versus 11 revisions in the UC cohort (2.7%) (P = .90). The most common reason for revision in both cohorts was periprosthetic joint infection (4 PS; 8 UC). Multivariable regression analyses controlling for age, body mass index, Elixhauser comorbidity score, sex, and degree of deformity demonstrated UC polyethylene liners were not associated with revision (hazard ratio 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.26 to 2.21; P = .62). There was no difference in eight-year survivorship to all-cause revision, including aseptic and septic failure. Alternative polyethylene liners from the historically utilized PS liners for TKA for valgus deformity did not reduce survivorship. With modern polyethylene designs, UC inserts can be utilized for this deformity without increasing the risk of failure.