Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 8, 2025
Potentiodynamic Corrosion Testing
Published on: September 4, 2016
Oxidized Zirconium Versus Cobalt Chromium for Primary TKA: No Difference in Midterm Revision Rates From the American
Anirudh K Gowd1, Katrina E Bang1, Garrett S Bullock1,2
1Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Rehabilitation, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA.
Background:
Cobalt chromium (CoCr) is the most commonly used material in TKA; however, the use of oxidized zirconium (OxZr) implants has increased. The advantages to this material demonstrated in basic science studies have not been borne out in clinical studies to date.
Question/Purpose:
In the setting of the American Joint Replacement Registry (AJRR), how do revision rates differ between CoCr and OxZr after primary TKA?
Methods:
The AJRR was accessed for all primary TKAs performed between 2012 and 2020 for osteoarthritis, resulting in 441,605 procedures (68,506 with OxZr and 373,099 with CoCr). The AJRR is the largest joint replacement registry worldwide and collects procedure-specific details, making it ideal for large-scale comparisons of implant materials in the United States. Competing risk survival analyses were used to evaluate the all-cause revision rates of primary TKAs, comparing CoCr and OxZr implants. Data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services claims from 2012 to 2017 were also cross-referenced to capture additional revisions from other institutions. Revision rates were tabulated and subclassified by indication. Multivariate Cox regression was used to account for confounding variables such as age, gender, region, and hospital size.
Results:
After controlling for confounding variables, there were no differences between the OxZr and CoCr groups in terms of the rate of all-cause revision at a mean follow-up of 46 ± 23 months and 44 ± 24 months for CoCr and OxZr implants, respectively (hazard ratio 1.055 [95% confidence interval 0.979 to 1.137]; p = 0.16) The univariate analysis demonstrated increased rates of revisions for pain and instability in the OxZr group (p = 0.003 and p < 0.001, respectively).
Conclusion:
These findings suggest there is no difference in all-cause revision between OxZr and CoCr implants in the short-term to mid-term. However, further long-term in vivo studies are needed to monitor the safety and all-cause revision rate of OxZr implants compared with those of CoCr implants. OxZr implants may be favorable in patients who have sensitivity to metal. Despite similar short-term to mid-term all-cause revision rates to CoCr implants, because of the limitations of this study, definitive recommendations for or against the use of OxZr cannot be made.
Level Of Evidence:
Level III, therapeutic study.
