Reasons for failure of total temporomandibular joint replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the revision rate after total alloplastic temporomandibular joint replacement (TMJR) and determine whether there is a higher risk of revision surgery with stock or custom-fitted prostheses (the two most current TMJR prosthesis types). A systematic review was performed, with a search of PubMed, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Library in November 2020. Overall, 27 articles were included in this study, describing Biomet and TMJ Concepts prostheses and including postoperative data on complications requiring a return to the operating room. A total of 2247 prostheses were analysed: 1350 stock Biomet prostheses and 897 custom-fitted TMJ Concepts and custom-fitted Biomet prostheses. The global revision rate was 1.19 per 100 prosthesis-years. The most common reason for revision was heterotopic bone formation. Stock prostheses appeared to have a lower risk of revision compared to custom prostheses: rate ratio 0.52 (95% confidence interval 0.33-0.81, P-value 0.003). Regarding causes of revision, the only significant difference between the types of devices was a higher rate of heterotopic bone formation for custom-made prostheses (P = 0.001). The results of this study revealed a low revision rate post TMJR revision, with stock devices even less prone to such risk. Nevertheless, these results can be explained by the fact that custom-made prostheses are more likely to be used for cases in which the anatomy is significantly abnormal or there is a history of multiple joint surgeries, which carry a greater risk of complications and heterotopic bone formation.

Keywords: joint prosthesis; joint replacement; meta-analysis; systematic review; temporomandibular joint.