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

Aims

To map the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) and High Activity Arthroplasty Score (HAAS) items to a common scale, and to investigate the psychometric properties of this new scale for the measurement of knee health.

Aims. Joint registries classify all further arthroplasty procedures to a knee with an existing partial arthroplasty as revision surgery, regardless of the actual procedure performed. Relatively minor procedures, including bearing exchanges, are classified in the same way as major operations requiring augments and stems. A new classification system is proposed to acknowledge and describe the detail of these procedures, which has implications for risk, recovery, and health economics. Methods. Classification categories were proposed by a surgical consensus group, then ranked by patients, according to perceived invasiveness and implications for recovery. In round one, 26 revision cases were classified by the consensus group. Results were tested for inter-rater reliability. In round two, four additional cases were added for clarity. Round three repeated the survey one month later, subject to inter- and intrarater reliability testing. In round four, five additional expert partial knee arthroplasty surgeons were asked to classify the 30 cases according to the proposed revision partial knee classification (RPKC) system. Results. Four classes were proposed: PR1, where no bone-implant interfaces are affected; PR2, where surgery does not include conversion to total knee arthroplasty, for example, a second partial arthroplasty to a native compartment; PR3, when a standard primary total knee prosthesis is used; and PR4 when revision components are necessary. Round one resulted in 92% inter-rater agreement (Kendall’s W 0.97; p < 0.005), rising to 93% in round two (Kendall’s W 0.98; p < 0.001). Round three demonstrated 97% agreement (Kendall’s W 0.98; p < 0.001), with high intra-rater reliability (interclass correlation coefficient (ICC) 0.99; 95% confidence interval 0.98 to 0.99). Round four resulted in 80% agreement (Kendall’s W 0.92; p < 0.001). Conclusion. The RPKC system accounts for all procedures which may be appropriate following partial knee arthroplasty. It has been shown to be reliable, repeatable and pragmatic. The implications for patient care and health economics are discussed. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(8):638–645

Aims

Patient dissatisfaction is not uncommon following primary total knee arthroplasty. One proposed method to alleviate this is by improving knee kinematics. Therefore, we aimed to answer the following research question: are there significant differences in knee kinematics based on the design of the tibial insert (cruciate-retaining (CR), ultra-congruent (UC), or medial congruent (MC))?

Aims

Patient dissatisfaction following primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) with manual jig-based instruments has been reported to be as high as 30%. Robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty (RA-TKA) has been increasingly used in an effort to improve patient outcomes, however there is a paucity of literature examining patient satisfaction after RA-TKA. This study aims to identify the incidence of patients who were not satisfied following RA-TKA and to determine factors associated with higher levels of dissatisfaction.

Aims

The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes, mortalities, implant survival rates, and complications of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in patients with or without hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection over at least ten years of follow-up.

Aims

The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of robotic arm-assisted bi-unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (bi-UKA) with conventional mechanically aligned total knee arthroplasty (TKA) during the first six weeks and at one year postoperatively.

Cartilage repair in terms of replacement, or regeneration of damaged or diseased articular cartilage with functional tissue, is the ‘holy grail’ of joint surgery. A wide spectrum of strategies for cartilage repair currently exists and several of these techniques have been reported to be associated with successful clinical outcomes for appropriately selected indications. However, based on respective advantages, disadvantages, and limitations, no single strategy, or even combination of strategies, provides surgeons with viable options for attaining successful long-term outcomes in the majority of patients. As such, development of novel techniques and optimisation of current techniques need to be, and are, the focus of a great deal of research from the basic science level to clinical trials. Translational research that bridges scientific discoveries to clinical application involves the use of animal models in order to assess safety and efficacy for regulatory approval for human use. This review article provides an overview of animal models for cartilage repair.

Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2014;4:89–94.