Aims. The risk of mechanical failure of modular revision hip stems is frequently mentioned in the literature, but little is currently known about the actual clinical
Bone defects are frequently observed in anterior shoulder instability. Over the last decade, knowledge of the association of bone loss with increased
Aims. To determine ten-year
Aims. The aims of this study were to validate the outcome of total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and to identify factors that affect the outcome. Methods. We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, Cochrane Reviews, and Embase from between January 2003 and March 2019. The primary aim was to determine the implant failure rate, the mode of failure, and risk factors predisposing to failure. A secondary aim was to identify the overall complication rate, associated risk factors, and clinical performance. A meta-regression analysis was completed to identify the association between each parameter with the outcome. Results. A total of 38 studies including 2,118 TEAs were included in the study. The mean follow-up was 80.9 months (8.2 to 156). The implant failure and complication rates were 16.1% (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.128 to 0.200) and 24.5% (95% CI 0.203 to 0.293), respectively. Aseptic loosening was the most common mode of failure (9.5%; 95% CI 0.071 to 0.124). The mean postoperative ranges of motion (ROMs) were: flexion 131.5° (124.2° to 138.8°), extension 29.3° (26.8° to 31.9°), pronation 74.0° (67.8° to 80.2°), and supination 72.5° (69.5° to 75.5°), and the mean postoperative Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS) was 89.3 (95% CI 86.9 to 91.6). The meta-regression analysis identified that younger patients and implants with an unlinked design correlated with higher
Both the femoral and tibial component are usually cemented at revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA), while stems can be added with either cemented or press-fit (hybrid) fixation. The aim of this study was to compare the long-term stability of rTKA with cemented and press-fitted stems, using radiostereometric analysis (RSA). This is a follow-up of a randomized controlled trial, initially involving 32 patients, of whom 19 (nine cemented, ten hybrid) were available for follow-up ten years postoperatively, when further RSA measurements were made. Micromotion of the femoral and tibial components was assessed using model-based RSA software (RSAcore). The clinical outcome was evaluated using the Knee Society Score (KSS), the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), and visual analogue scale (pain and satisfaction).Aims
Methods
This systematic review aims to compare the precision of component positioning, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), complications, survivorship, cost-effectiveness, and learning curves of MAKO robotic arm-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (RAUKA) with manual medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (mUKA). Searches of PubMed, MEDLINE, and Google Scholar were performed in November 2021 according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis statement. Search terms included “robotic”, “unicompartmental”, “knee”, and “arthroplasty”. Published clinical research articles reporting the learning curves and cost-effectiveness of MAKO RAUKA, and those comparing the component precision, functional outcomes, survivorship, or complications with mUKA, were included for analysis.Aims
Methods
The aim of this study was to conduct a cross-sectional, observational cohort study of patients presenting for revision of a total hip, or total or unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, to understand current routes to revision surgery and explore differences in symptoms, healthcare use, reason for revision, and the revision surgery (surgical time, components, length of stay) between patients having regular follow-up and those without. Data were collected from participants and medical records for the 12 months prior to revision. Patients with previous revision, metal-on-metal articulations, or hip hemiarthroplasty were excluded. Participants were retrospectively classified as ‘Planned’ or ‘Unplanned’ revision. Multilevel regression and propensity score matching were used to compare the two groups.Aims
Methods
The rate of dislocation when traditional single bearing implants are used in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) has been reported to be between 8% and 10%. The use of dual mobility bearings can reduce this risk to between 0.5% and 2%. Dual mobility bearings are more expensive, and it is not clear if the additional clinical benefits constitute value for money for the payers. We aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of dual mobility compared with single bearings for patients undergoing revision THA. We developed a Markov model to estimate the expected cost and benefits of dual mobility compared with single bearing implants in patients undergoing revision THA. The rates of revision and further revision were calculated from the National Joint Registry of England and Wales, while rates of transition from one health state to another were estimated from the literature, and the data were stratified by sex and age. Implant and healthcare costs were estimated from local procurement prices and national tariffs. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were calculated using published utility estimates for patients undergoing THA.Aims
Methods
Aims. To determine the outcomes following revision surgery of metal-on-metal
hip arthroplasties (MoMHA) performed for adverse reactions to metal
debris (ARMD), and to identify factors predictive of re-revision. Patients and Methods. We performed a retrospective observational study using National
Joint Registry (NJR) data on 2535 MoMHAs undergoing revision surgery
for ARMD between 2008 and 2014. The outcomes studied following revision were
intra-operative complications, mortality and re-revision surgery.
Predictors of re-revision were identified using competing-risk regression
modelling. Results. Intra-operative complications occurred in 40 revisions (1.6%).
The cumulative five-year patient survival rate was 95.9% (95% confidence
intervals (CI) 92.3 to 97.8). Re-revision surgery was performed
in 192 hips (7.6%). The cumulative five-year implant survival rate
was 89.5% (95% CI 87.3 to 91.3). Predictors of re-revision were
high body mass index at revision (subhazard ratio (SHR) 1.06 per
kg/m. 2 . increase, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.09), modular component
only revisions (head and liner with or without taper adapter; SHR
2.01, 95% CI 1.19 to 3.38), ceramic-on-ceramic revision bearings
(SHR 1.86, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.80), and acetabular bone grafting (SHR
2.10, 95% CI 1.43 to 3.07). These four factors remained predictive
of re-revision when the missing data were imputed. Conclusion. The short-term risk of re-revision following MoMHA revision surgery
performed for ARMD was comparable with that reported in the NJR
following all-cause non-MoMHA revision surgery. However, the factors
predictive of re-revision included those which could be modified
by the surgeon, suggesting that
The aim of this to study was to compare the previously unreported
long-term survival outcome of the Oxford medial unicompartmental
knee arthroplasty (UKA) performed by trainee surgeons and consultants. We therefore identified a previously unreported cohort of 1084
knees in 947 patients who had a UKA inserted for anteromedial knee
arthritis by consultants and surgeons in training, at a tertiary
arthroplasty centre and performed survival analysis on the group
with revision as the endpoint.Aims
Patients and Methods
There is a large amount of evidence available
about the relative merits of unicompartmental and total knee arthroplasty
(UKA and TKA). Based on the same evidence, different people draw
different conclusions and as a result, there is great variability
in the usage of UKA. The revision rate of UKA is much higher than TKA and so some
surgeons conclude that UKA should not be performed. Other surgeons
believe that the main reason for the high revision rate is that
UKA is easy to revise and, therefore, the threshold for revision
is low. They also believe that UKA has many advantages over TKA
such as a faster recovery, lower morbidity and mortality and better
function. They therefore conclude that UKA should be undertaken
whenever appropriate. The solution to this argument is to minimise the revision rate
of UKA, thereby addressing the main disadvantage of UKA. The evidence
suggests that this will be achieved if surgeons use UKA for at least
20% of their knee arthroplasties and use implants that are appropriate
for these broad indications. Cite this article:
Partial knee arthroplasty (PKA), either medial
or lateral unicompartmental knee artroplasty (UKA) or patellofemoral arthroplasty
(PFA) are a good option in suitable patients and have the advantages
of reduced operative trauma, preservation of both cruciate ligaments
and bone stock, and restoration of normal kinematics within the
knee joint. However, questions remain concerning long-term survival.
The goal of this review article was to present the long-term results
of medial and lateral UKA, PFA and combined compartmental arthroplasty
for multicompartmental disease. Medium- and long-term studies suggest
reasonable outcomes at ten years with survival greater than 95% in
UKA performed for medial osteoarthritis or osteonecrosis, and similarly
for lateral Cite this article:
Arthroplasty registries are important for the
surveillance of joint replacements and the evaluation of outcome. Independent
validation of registry data ensures high quality. The ability for
orthopaedic implant retrieval centres to validate registry data
is not known. We analysed data from the National Joint Registry
for England, Wales and Northern Ireland (NJR) for primary metal-on-metal
hip arthroplasties performed between 2003 and 2013. Records were
linked to the London Implant Retrieval Centre (RC) for validation.
A total of 67 045 procedures on the NJR and 782 revised pairs of
components from the RC were included. We were able to link 476 procedures
(60.9%) recorded with the RC to the NJR successfully. However, 306
procedures (39.1%) could not be linked. The outcome recorded by the
NJR (as either revised, unrevised or death) for a primary procedure
was incorrect in 79 linked cases (16.6%). The rate of registry-retrieval
linkage and correct assignment of outcome code improved over time.
The rates of error for component reference numbers on the NJR were
as follows: femoral head category number 14/229 (5.0%); femoral head
batch number 13/232 (5.3%); acetabular component category number
2/293 (0.7%) and acetabular component batch number 24/347 (6.5%). Registry-retrieval linkage provided a novel means for the validation
of data, particularly for component fields. This study suggests
that NJR reports may underestimate rates of revision for many types
of metal-on-metal hip replacement. This is topical given the increasing
scope for NJR data. We recommend a system for continuous independent
evaluation of the quality and validity of NJR data. Cite this article:
Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is an established
and successful procedure. However, the design of prostheses continues
to be modified in an attempt to optimise the functional outcome
of the patient. The aim of this study was to determine if patient outcome after
TKA was influenced by the design of the prosthesis used. A total of 212 patients (mean age 69; 43 to 92; 131 female (62%),
81 male (32%)) were enrolled in a single centre double-blind trial
and randomised to receive either a Kinemax (group 1) or a Triathlon
(group 2) TKA. Patients were assessed pre-operatively, at six weeks, six months,
one year and three years after surgery. The outcome assessments
used were the Oxford Knee Score; range of movement; pain numerical
rating scales; lower limb power output; timed functional assessment
battery and a satisfaction survey. Data were assessed incorporating
change over all assessment time points, using repeated measures
analysis of variance longitudinal mixed models. Implant group 2
showed a significantly greater range of movement (p = 0.009), greater
lower limb power output (p = 0.026) and reduced report of ‘worst
daily pain’ (p = 0.003) over the three years of follow-up. Differences
in Oxford Knee Score (p = 0.09), report of ‘average daily pain’
(p = 0.57) and timed functional performance tasks (p = 0.23) did
not reach statistical significance. Satisfaction with outcome was
significantly better in group 2 (p = 0.001). These results suggest that patient outcome after TKA can be influenced
by the prosthesis used. Cite this article: