Aims. There has been a recent resurgence in interest in combined partial knee arthroplasty (PKA) as an alternative to total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The varied terminology used to describe these procedures leads to confusion and ambiguity in communication between surgeons, allied health professionals, and patients. A standardized classification system is required for patient safety, accurate clinical record-keeping, clear communication, correct coding for appropriate remuneration, and joint registry data collection. Materials and Methods. An advanced PubMed search was conducted, using medical subject headings (MeSH) to identify terms and abbreviations used to describe knee arthroplasty procedures. The search related to TKA, unicompartmental (UKA), patellofemoral (PFA), and combined PKA procedures. Surveys were conducted of orthopaedic surgeons, trainees, and biomechanical engineers, who were asked which of the descriptive terms and abbreviations identified from the literature search they found most intuitive and appropriate to describe each procedure. The results were used to determine a popular consensus. Results. Survey participants preferred “bi-unicondylar arthroplasty” (Bi-UKA) to describe ipsilateral medial and lateral unicompartmental arthroplasty; “medial bi-compartmental arthroplasty” (BCA-M) to describe ipsilateral medial unicompartmental arthroplasty with patellofemoral arthroplasty; “lateral bi-compartmental arthroplasty” (BCA-L) to describe ipsilateral lateral unicompartmental arthroplasty with patellofemoral arthroplasty; and tri-compartmental arthroplasty (TCA) to describe ipsilateral patellofemoral and medial and lateral unicompartmental arthroplasties. “Combined partial knee arthroplasty” (CPKA) was the favoured umbrella term. Conclusion. We recommend bi-unicondylar arthroplasty (Bi-UKA), medial bicompartmental arthroplasty (BCA-M), lateral bicompartmental arthroplasty (BCA-L), and tricompartmental arthroplasty (TCA) as the preferred terms to classify CPKA procedures. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:922–928

Satisfaction with care is important to both patients and to those who pay for it. The Net Promoter Score (NPS), widely used in the service industries, has been introduced into the NHS as the ‘friends and family test’; an overarching measure of patient satisfaction. It assesses the likelihood of the patient recommending the healthcare received to another, and is seen as a discriminator of healthcare performance. We prospectively assessed 6186 individuals undergoing primary lower limb joint replacement at a single university hospital to determine the Net Promoter Score for joint replacements and to evaluate which factors contributed to the response.

Achieving pain relief (odds ratio (OR) 2.13, confidence interval (CI) 1.83 to 2.49), the meeting of pre-operative expectation (OR 2.57, CI 2.24 to 2.97), and the hospital experience (OR 2.33, CI 2.03 to 2.68) are the domains that explain whether a patient would recommend joint replacement services. These three factors, combined with the type of surgery undertaken (OR 2.31, CI 1.68 to 3.17), drove a predictive model that was able to explain 95% of the variation in the patient’s recommendation response. Though intuitively similar, this ‘recommendation’ metric was found to be materially different to satisfaction responses. The difference between THR (NPS 71) and TKR (NPS 49) suggests that no overarching score for a department should be used without an adjustment for case mix. However, the Net Promoter Score does measure a further important dimension to our existing metrics: the patient experience of healthcare delivery.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:622–8.