Loading…

Conventional Versus Highly Cross-Linked Polyethylene in Primary Total Knee Replacement: A Comparison of Revision Rates Using Data from the National Joint Registry for England, Wales, and Northern Ireland

BACKGROUND:There is evidence to support the use of highly cross-linked polyethylene (HXLPE) in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty. However, the benefits for those undergoing total knee arthroplasty are uncertain, with conflicting reports based on previous cohort analyses. The purpose of the...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume 2020-01, Vol.102 (2), p.119-127
Main Authors: Partridge, Thomas C.J., Baker, Paul N., Jameson, Simon S., Mason, James, Reed, Mike R., Deehan, David J.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3361-d714aaee525f880e920472bb811f07b687d73b292a8e6a0adad8a4a172793dc83
container_end_page 127
container_issue 2
container_start_page 119
container_title Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume
container_volume 102
creator Partridge, Thomas C.J.
Baker, Paul N.
Jameson, Simon S.
Mason, James
Reed, Mike R.
Deehan, David J.
description BACKGROUND:There is evidence to support the use of highly cross-linked polyethylene (HXLPE) in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty. However, the benefits for those undergoing total knee arthroplasty are uncertain, with conflicting reports based on previous cohort analyses. The purpose of the present study was to compare the revision rates following primary total knee arthroplasty with use of HXLPE as compared with conventional polyethylene (CPE) using data from the National Joint Registry (NJR) for England, Wales and Northern Ireland. METHODS:We performed a retrospective analysis of primary total knee arthroplasties recorded in the NJR from 2003 to 2014. Cobalt-chromium (CoCr)-CPE and CoCr-HXLPE bearing surfaces were compared using all-cause revision, aseptic revision, and septic revision as end points. Survival analyses were conducted using rates per 100 years observed, Kaplan-Meier survival estimates, and Cox regression hazard ratios (HRs) adjusted for age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification, body mass index (BMI), lead surgeon grade, and implant constraint. Secondary analyses compared the most commonly used HXLPEs (Zimmer Prolong, DePuy XLK, and Stryker X3) against CPE for the 3 most common total knee arthroplasty systems (NexGen, PFC Sigma, and Triathlon). RESULTS:In the present study of 550,658 total knee arthroplasties, the unadjusted aseptic revision rates were significantly lower following procedures performed with CPE (n = 513,744) as compared with those performed with HXLPE total knee replacements (n = 36,914) (0.29 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.28 to 0.30] compared to 0.38 [95% CI, 0.35 to 0.42], p < 0.01). The 10-year HR associated with CPE was 0.4 (95% CI, 0.1 to 0.8, p = 0.03). There were no significant differences between the adjusted revision rates of HXPLE compared with CPE in individual analyses of the most common total knee arthroplasty systems. However, for the subset of patients who were both 35 kg/m, the “second-generation” Stryker X3 HXLPE demonstrated significantly better survival than its respective CPE, with CPE having an HR of 2.6 (95% CI, 1.2 to 5.9) (p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS:Alternative bearings are marketed as having improved wear properties over traditional CoCr-CPE. This registry-based analysis demonstrated no overall survival benefit of HXLPE after a maximum duration of follow-up of 12 years. Because of their increased cost, the routine use of HXLPE bea
doi_str_mv 10.2106/JBJS.19.00031
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2314574407</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2314574407</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3361-d714aaee525f880e920472bb811f07b687d73b292a8e6a0adad8a4a172793dc83</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kk1z0zAQhj0MDA2FI1dmjxzqoA9_cmtNaRsypVNaOHpke52IylKQ5HbyG_unkJvADU7SaJ93d-d9FUVvKZkzSrIPi5PFtzkt54QQTp9FM5ryNKa8yJ5HM0IYjUuepgfRK-d-BiRJSP4yOuA0ZyllfBY9Vkbfo_bSaKHgO1o3OjiXq7XaQmWNc_FS6jvs4MqoLfr1VqFGkBqurByE3cKN8UH4RSPCNW6UaHEI7T7CMVRm2AgrndFg-lC8ly5MgWvh0cGtk3oFn4QX0FszgF8jXIr9GgsjtQ-KlXQ-jOiNhVO9UkJ3R_BDKHRHEO5waWyQWQ0XFqfi6-hFL5TDN_vzMLr9fHpTncfLr2cX1fEybjnPaNzlNBECMWVpXxQES0aSnDVNQWlP8iYr8i7nDSuZKDATRHSiK0QigmV5ybu24IfR-13fjTW_RnS-HqRrUYUd0IyuZpwmaT5ZHdB4h7aTlxb7erPzraaknvKrp_xqWtZP-QX-3b712AzY_aX_BBYAugMejPIhrTs1PqCt1yiUX_-zafIfDZm-RcZ4zAgjhNKUxE9P_DcFoLgR</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2314574407</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Conventional Versus Highly Cross-Linked Polyethylene in Primary Total Knee Replacement: A Comparison of Revision Rates Using Data from the National Joint Registry for England, Wales, and Northern Ireland</title><source>HEAL-Link subscriptions: Lippincott Williams &amp; Wilkins</source><creator>Partridge, Thomas C.J. ; Baker, Paul N. ; Jameson, Simon S. ; Mason, James ; Reed, Mike R. ; Deehan, David J.</creator><creatorcontrib>Partridge, Thomas C.J. ; Baker, Paul N. ; Jameson, Simon S. ; Mason, James ; Reed, Mike R. ; Deehan, David J.</creatorcontrib><description>BACKGROUND:There is evidence to support the use of highly cross-linked polyethylene (HXLPE) in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty. However, the benefits for those undergoing total knee arthroplasty are uncertain, with conflicting reports based on previous cohort analyses. The purpose of the present study was to compare the revision rates following primary total knee arthroplasty with use of HXLPE as compared with conventional polyethylene (CPE) using data from the National Joint Registry (NJR) for England, Wales and Northern Ireland. METHODS:We performed a retrospective analysis of primary total knee arthroplasties recorded in the NJR from 2003 to 2014. Cobalt-chromium (CoCr)-CPE and CoCr-HXLPE bearing surfaces were compared using all-cause revision, aseptic revision, and septic revision as end points. Survival analyses were conducted using rates per 100 years observed, Kaplan-Meier survival estimates, and Cox regression hazard ratios (HRs) adjusted for age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification, body mass index (BMI), lead surgeon grade, and implant constraint. Secondary analyses compared the most commonly used HXLPEs (Zimmer Prolong, DePuy XLK, and Stryker X3) against CPE for the 3 most common total knee arthroplasty systems (NexGen, PFC Sigma, and Triathlon). RESULTS:In the present study of 550,658 total knee arthroplasties, the unadjusted aseptic revision rates were significantly lower following procedures performed with CPE (n = 513,744) as compared with those performed with HXLPE total knee replacements (n = 36,914) (0.29 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.28 to 0.30] compared to 0.38 [95% CI, 0.35 to 0.42], p &lt; 0.01). The 10-year HR associated with CPE was 0.4 (95% CI, 0.1 to 0.8, p = 0.03). There were no significant differences between the adjusted revision rates of HXPLE compared with CPE in individual analyses of the most common total knee arthroplasty systems. However, for the subset of patients who were both &lt;60 years of age and had a BMI of &gt;35 kg/m, the “second-generation” Stryker X3 HXLPE demonstrated significantly better survival than its respective CPE, with CPE having an HR of 2.6 (95% CI, 1.2 to 5.9) (p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS:Alternative bearings are marketed as having improved wear properties over traditional CoCr-CPE. This registry-based analysis demonstrated no overall survival benefit of HXLPE after a maximum duration of follow-up of 12 years. Because of their increased cost, the routine use of HXLPE bearings may not be justified. However, they may have a role in specific “higher demand” groups such as patients &lt;60 years of age and/or those with a BMI of &gt;35 kg/m. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete list of levels of evidence.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0021-9355</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1535-1386</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.19.00031</identifier><identifier>PMID: 31725123</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc</publisher><subject>Aged ; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee - instrumentation ; England ; Female ; Humans ; Knee Prosthesis ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Northern Ireland ; Polyethylene - therapeutic use ; Prosthesis Design ; Prosthesis Failure ; Registries ; Reoperation - statistics &amp; numerical data ; Retrospective Studies ; Surgical Wound Infection - etiology ; Wales</subject><ispartof>Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume, 2020-01, Vol.102 (2), p.119-127</ispartof><rights>The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc.</rights><rights>Copyright 2020 by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Incorporated</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3361-d714aaee525f880e920472bb811f07b687d73b292a8e6a0adad8a4a172793dc83</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-6309-2710 ; 0000-0001-5780-8818 ; 0000-0001-9210-4082 ; 0000-0001-8529-2417 ; 0000-0003-3479-8279 ; 0000-0001-8222-4793</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27923,27924</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31725123$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Partridge, Thomas C.J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Baker, Paul N.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jameson, Simon S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mason, James</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Reed, Mike R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Deehan, David J.</creatorcontrib><title>Conventional Versus Highly Cross-Linked Polyethylene in Primary Total Knee Replacement: A Comparison of Revision Rates Using Data from the National Joint Registry for England, Wales, and Northern Ireland</title><title>Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume</title><addtitle>J Bone Joint Surg Am</addtitle><description>BACKGROUND:There is evidence to support the use of highly cross-linked polyethylene (HXLPE) in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty. However, the benefits for those undergoing total knee arthroplasty are uncertain, with conflicting reports based on previous cohort analyses. The purpose of the present study was to compare the revision rates following primary total knee arthroplasty with use of HXLPE as compared with conventional polyethylene (CPE) using data from the National Joint Registry (NJR) for England, Wales and Northern Ireland. METHODS:We performed a retrospective analysis of primary total knee arthroplasties recorded in the NJR from 2003 to 2014. Cobalt-chromium (CoCr)-CPE and CoCr-HXLPE bearing surfaces were compared using all-cause revision, aseptic revision, and septic revision as end points. Survival analyses were conducted using rates per 100 years observed, Kaplan-Meier survival estimates, and Cox regression hazard ratios (HRs) adjusted for age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification, body mass index (BMI), lead surgeon grade, and implant constraint. Secondary analyses compared the most commonly used HXLPEs (Zimmer Prolong, DePuy XLK, and Stryker X3) against CPE for the 3 most common total knee arthroplasty systems (NexGen, PFC Sigma, and Triathlon). RESULTS:In the present study of 550,658 total knee arthroplasties, the unadjusted aseptic revision rates were significantly lower following procedures performed with CPE (n = 513,744) as compared with those performed with HXLPE total knee replacements (n = 36,914) (0.29 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.28 to 0.30] compared to 0.38 [95% CI, 0.35 to 0.42], p &lt; 0.01). The 10-year HR associated with CPE was 0.4 (95% CI, 0.1 to 0.8, p = 0.03). There were no significant differences between the adjusted revision rates of HXPLE compared with CPE in individual analyses of the most common total knee arthroplasty systems. However, for the subset of patients who were both &lt;60 years of age and had a BMI of &gt;35 kg/m, the “second-generation” Stryker X3 HXLPE demonstrated significantly better survival than its respective CPE, with CPE having an HR of 2.6 (95% CI, 1.2 to 5.9) (p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS:Alternative bearings are marketed as having improved wear properties over traditional CoCr-CPE. This registry-based analysis demonstrated no overall survival benefit of HXLPE after a maximum duration of follow-up of 12 years. Because of their increased cost, the routine use of HXLPE bearings may not be justified. However, they may have a role in specific “higher demand” groups such as patients &lt;60 years of age and/or those with a BMI of &gt;35 kg/m. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete list of levels of evidence.</description><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee - instrumentation</subject><subject>England</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Knee Prosthesis</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Northern Ireland</subject><subject>Polyethylene - therapeutic use</subject><subject>Prosthesis Design</subject><subject>Prosthesis Failure</subject><subject>Registries</subject><subject>Reoperation - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Surgical Wound Infection - etiology</subject><subject>Wales</subject><issn>0021-9355</issn><issn>1535-1386</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kk1z0zAQhj0MDA2FI1dmjxzqoA9_cmtNaRsypVNaOHpke52IylKQ5HbyG_unkJvADU7SaJ93d-d9FUVvKZkzSrIPi5PFtzkt54QQTp9FM5ryNKa8yJ5HM0IYjUuepgfRK-d-BiRJSP4yOuA0ZyllfBY9Vkbfo_bSaKHgO1o3OjiXq7XaQmWNc_FS6jvs4MqoLfr1VqFGkBqurByE3cKN8UH4RSPCNW6UaHEI7T7CMVRm2AgrndFg-lC8ly5MgWvh0cGtk3oFn4QX0FszgF8jXIr9GgsjtQ-KlXQ-jOiNhVO9UkJ3R_BDKHRHEO5waWyQWQ0XFqfi6-hFL5TDN_vzMLr9fHpTncfLr2cX1fEybjnPaNzlNBECMWVpXxQES0aSnDVNQWlP8iYr8i7nDSuZKDATRHSiK0QigmV5ybu24IfR-13fjTW_RnS-HqRrUYUd0IyuZpwmaT5ZHdB4h7aTlxb7erPzraaknvKrp_xqWtZP-QX-3b712AzY_aX_BBYAugMejPIhrTs1PqCt1yiUX_-zafIfDZm-RcZ4zAgjhNKUxE9P_DcFoLgR</recordid><startdate>20200115</startdate><enddate>20200115</enddate><creator>Partridge, Thomas C.J.</creator><creator>Baker, Paul N.</creator><creator>Jameson, Simon S.</creator><creator>Mason, James</creator><creator>Reed, Mike R.</creator><creator>Deehan, David J.</creator><general>The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc</general><general>Copyright by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Incorporated</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6309-2710</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5780-8818</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9210-4082</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8529-2417</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3479-8279</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8222-4793</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20200115</creationdate><title>Conventional Versus Highly Cross-Linked Polyethylene in Primary Total Knee Replacement: A Comparison of Revision Rates Using Data from the National Joint Registry for England, Wales, and Northern Ireland</title><author>Partridge, Thomas C.J. ; Baker, Paul N. ; Jameson, Simon S. ; Mason, James ; Reed, Mike R. ; Deehan, David J.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3361-d714aaee525f880e920472bb811f07b687d73b292a8e6a0adad8a4a172793dc83</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee - instrumentation</topic><topic>England</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Knee Prosthesis</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Northern Ireland</topic><topic>Polyethylene - therapeutic use</topic><topic>Prosthesis Design</topic><topic>Prosthesis Failure</topic><topic>Registries</topic><topic>Reoperation - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Surgical Wound Infection - etiology</topic><topic>Wales</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Partridge, Thomas C.J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Baker, Paul N.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jameson, Simon S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mason, James</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Reed, Mike R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Deehan, David J.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Partridge, Thomas C.J.</au><au>Baker, Paul N.</au><au>Jameson, Simon S.</au><au>Mason, James</au><au>Reed, Mike R.</au><au>Deehan, David J.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Conventional Versus Highly Cross-Linked Polyethylene in Primary Total Knee Replacement: A Comparison of Revision Rates Using Data from the National Joint Registry for England, Wales, and Northern Ireland</atitle><jtitle>Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume</jtitle><addtitle>J Bone Joint Surg Am</addtitle><date>2020-01-15</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>102</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>119</spage><epage>127</epage><pages>119-127</pages><issn>0021-9355</issn><eissn>1535-1386</eissn><abstract>BACKGROUND:There is evidence to support the use of highly cross-linked polyethylene (HXLPE) in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty. However, the benefits for those undergoing total knee arthroplasty are uncertain, with conflicting reports based on previous cohort analyses. The purpose of the present study was to compare the revision rates following primary total knee arthroplasty with use of HXLPE as compared with conventional polyethylene (CPE) using data from the National Joint Registry (NJR) for England, Wales and Northern Ireland. METHODS:We performed a retrospective analysis of primary total knee arthroplasties recorded in the NJR from 2003 to 2014. Cobalt-chromium (CoCr)-CPE and CoCr-HXLPE bearing surfaces were compared using all-cause revision, aseptic revision, and septic revision as end points. Survival analyses were conducted using rates per 100 years observed, Kaplan-Meier survival estimates, and Cox regression hazard ratios (HRs) adjusted for age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification, body mass index (BMI), lead surgeon grade, and implant constraint. Secondary analyses compared the most commonly used HXLPEs (Zimmer Prolong, DePuy XLK, and Stryker X3) against CPE for the 3 most common total knee arthroplasty systems (NexGen, PFC Sigma, and Triathlon). RESULTS:In the present study of 550,658 total knee arthroplasties, the unadjusted aseptic revision rates were significantly lower following procedures performed with CPE (n = 513,744) as compared with those performed with HXLPE total knee replacements (n = 36,914) (0.29 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.28 to 0.30] compared to 0.38 [95% CI, 0.35 to 0.42], p &lt; 0.01). The 10-year HR associated with CPE was 0.4 (95% CI, 0.1 to 0.8, p = 0.03). There were no significant differences between the adjusted revision rates of HXPLE compared with CPE in individual analyses of the most common total knee arthroplasty systems. However, for the subset of patients who were both &lt;60 years of age and had a BMI of &gt;35 kg/m, the “second-generation” Stryker X3 HXLPE demonstrated significantly better survival than its respective CPE, with CPE having an HR of 2.6 (95% CI, 1.2 to 5.9) (p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS:Alternative bearings are marketed as having improved wear properties over traditional CoCr-CPE. This registry-based analysis demonstrated no overall survival benefit of HXLPE after a maximum duration of follow-up of 12 years. Because of their increased cost, the routine use of HXLPE bearings may not be justified. However, they may have a role in specific “higher demand” groups such as patients &lt;60 years of age and/or those with a BMI of &gt;35 kg/m. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete list of levels of evidence.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc</pub><pmid>31725123</pmid><doi>10.2106/JBJS.19.00031</doi><tpages>9</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6309-2710</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5780-8818</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9210-4082</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8529-2417</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3479-8279</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8222-4793</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0021-9355
ispartof Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume, 2020-01, Vol.102 (2), p.119-127
issn 0021-9355
1535-1386
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2314574407
source HEAL-Link subscriptions: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
subjects Aged
Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee - instrumentation
England
Female
Humans
Knee Prosthesis
Male
Middle Aged
Northern Ireland
Polyethylene - therapeutic use
Prosthesis Design
Prosthesis Failure
Registries
Reoperation - statistics & numerical data
Retrospective Studies
Surgical Wound Infection - etiology
Wales
title Conventional Versus Highly Cross-Linked Polyethylene in Primary Total Knee Replacement: A Comparison of Revision Rates Using Data from the National Joint Registry for England, Wales, and Northern Ireland
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-09T04%3A14%3A07IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Conventional%20Versus%20Highly%20Cross-Linked%20Polyethylene%20in%20Primary%20Total%20Knee%20Replacement:%20A%20Comparison%20of%20Revision%20Rates%20Using%20Data%20from%20the%20National%20Joint%20Registry%20for%20England,%20Wales,%20and%20Northern%20Ireland&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20bone%20and%20joint%20surgery.%20American%20volume&rft.au=Partridge,%20Thomas%20C.J.&rft.date=2020-01-15&rft.volume=102&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=119&rft.epage=127&rft.pages=119-127&rft.issn=0021-9355&rft.eissn=1535-1386&rft_id=info:doi/10.2106/JBJS.19.00031&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2314574407%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3361-d714aaee525f880e920472bb811f07b687d73b292a8e6a0adad8a4a172793dc83%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2314574407&rft_id=info:pmid/31725123&rfr_iscdi=true