Bone mineral density (BMD) and bone mineral content (BMC) have not been previously assessed in unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR). We studied the early bone changes beneath the uncemented Oxford medial UKR. Our hypothesis was that this implant should decrease the shear stresses across the bone-implant interface and result in improved BMD and BMC beneath the tibial component.

Using the Lunar iDXA and knee specific software we developed 7 regions of interest (ROI) in the proximal tibia and assessed 38 patients with an uncemented Oxford UKR at 2 years. We measured the replaced knee and contralateral unreplaced knee using the same ROI and compared the BMD and BMC. The initial precision study in 20 patients demonstrated high precision in all areas.

There were 12 males and 16 females with an average age of 65.8 years (46–84 years). ROI 1 and 2 were beneath the tibial tray and had significantly less BMC (p=0.023 and 0.001) and BMD (p=0.012 and 0.002). ROI 3 was the lateral tibial plateau and this area also had significantly less BMC (p=0.007) and BMD (p=0.0001). ROI 4 and 5 immediately below the tibial keel had no significant change. These changes were independent of gender and age.

These results were surprising in that the universal loss of BMC and BMD suggested that bone loading of the proximal tibia was not improved even after a UKR. The better BMD and BMC adjacent to the keel confirms other studies that show improved bone in-growth around keels and pegs in the uncemented tibial component. A prospective longitudinal study has been developed to compare BMD and BMC changes over time to see whether these changes are dynamic.

Developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) may lead to premature degenerative arthritis requiring total hip arthroplasty (THA). There is general concern that THA survival in DDH is inferior to that of the general population. We have investigated the results of primary THA performed in patients with DDH in New Zealand.

Through the New Zealand Joint Registry we identified all patients with DDH undergoing primary THA (n = 1205) and all patients with primary osteoarthritis (OA) undergoing primary THA (n = 40589) between 1 January 1999 and 31 December 2008. Postoperative outcomes (including six month Oxford Hip Score (OHS), revision rate, and six month mortality) were analysed and compared between the DDH and the OA groups. Baseline information and operative characteristics were also compared between the two patient groups.

There was no statistically significant difference in six month OHS between the DDH and OA groups from the uncorrected comparison (mean 41.5 vs. 40.8, p=0.056) and from the comparison corrected for known confounding variables (p=0.54). There was no statistically significant difference in revision rate between the DDH and OA groups from the uncorrected comparison (0.79 vs. 0.61 revisions per 100 component years, p=0.121) and from the comparison corrected for known confounding variables (p=0.674). There was no statistically significant difference in six month mortality between the DDH and OA groups from the uncorrected comparison (0.5% vs. 0.8%, p=0.284), however the corrected comparison identified a higher mortality rate in the DDH group (p=0.016).

The DDH group was significantly younger (49.3 years vs. 67.6 years, p<0.001), more often female (74% vs. 52%, p<0.001) and had a lower ASA class (p<0.001) than the OA group. The right hip was involved most often (51% DDH, 54% OA, p=0.03). Bone grafting (4% vs. 0.9%, p<0.001) and uncemented implants (68.3% vs. 28.1%, p<0.001) were more common in the DDH group. Surgical approach did not differ substantially between groups. The DDH group required a longer operative time than the OA group (mean 94.4 minutes vs. 79.7 minutes, p<0.001).

THA in patients with DDH patients is demanding. Despite the complexities inherent to THA in these patients, comparable functional outcomes and revision rates to patients with OA can be expected. Our results supports THA as a successful surgical option for the management of degenerative hip arthritis in patients with DDH.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the surgical options for unicompartmental osteoarthritis (OA) in younger patients by comparing the survivorship and functional results of Total Knee Replacement (TKR) following osteotomy with the results for both primary TKR and revision of Unicompartmental Knee Replacement (UKR) to a TKR, and thereby recommend the most appropriate index procedure for this group of patients.

We reviewed the revision rate and functional outcome of all patients who had a total knee replacement (TKR) following an osteotomy or Unicompartmental Knee Replacement (UKR) on the New Zealand Joint Registry. We used this data to compare the results to primary TKR scores, including comparison of age-matched subgroups.

There were 711 patients who had undergone TKR as salvage for a failed osteotomy with a revision rate of 1.33 revisions per 100 component years and a mean Oxford knee score (OKS) of 36.9. 205 patients had failed UKR converted to TKR with a revision rate of 1.97 revisions per 100 component years and a mean OKS of 29.1. The revision scores of TKR for both failed osteotomy and failed UKR were significantly poorer than following primary TKR (p← 0.05). The mean OKS following revision of a UKR was significantly poorer than both primary TKR (p←0.001) and TKR for a failed osteotomy (p←0.001). There was no significant difference in mean OKS between primary TKR and TKR for a failed osteotomy, even amongst patients younger than 65 years (p=0.8).

This study has shown that if a surgeon is choosing between an osteotomy and a UKR in the younger patient than the better for any subsequent revision procedure will be achieved with an osteotomy. Revision of a failed osteotomy to a TKR has improved functional results compared to revision of a failed UKR. However, both yield poor survivorship rate compared to primary TKR.

This study reviewed the revision rate of fully cemented, hybrid and cementless primary total knee replacements (TKR) registered in the New Zealand Joint Registry from 1999 to May 2008 to determine whether there was any significant difference in the survival and reason for revision with these different types of fixation.

The percentage rate of revision was calculated per 100 person years (HPY) and compared to the reason for revision, type of fixation and the patient’s age.

Of the 28707 primary TKR registered, 522 underwent revision procedures requiring change of at least one component with a survival rate of 0.44 HPY (1.8%). The majority of revisions were for pain (153) followed by deep infection (133) followed by loosening of the tibial component (98). Overall the rate of tibial loosening was 0.07 HPY (0.3 %) in the cemented group vs 0.25 HPY (1%) in the cementless group (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the type of fixation used for the femoral component, but there was a significant difference in the different types of fixation when revised for pain, with the uncemented tibia performing the poorest. There was no significantly difference in the younger patient (< 55 years) with respect to tibial loosening (p=0.92).

Failure of the uncemented total knee replacement was due to pain and tibial loosening although the results in patients under 55 years were similar in all fixation groups. There was no difference in the fixation method of the femoral component.

To ascertain whether there is any relationship between the Oxford 12 scores gained six months post surgery and early revision for primary hip and knee arthroplasty.

The six month post surgery Oxford 12 scores were retrieved from the National Joint Registry (NJR) for the seven year period ending 31^st December 2006. These were analysed in relation to revision of primary hip and knee procedures using three methods of statistical analysis; logistic regression, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and direct plotting of groups of scores against the proportion of hips revised for that same group.

Logistic regression: For every one unit increase in the Oxford score there was an 11% increased risk of revision (hips) and 12% (knees) within the first two years of surgery, 5 and 6% respectively between two and four years and 3 and 4% risk respectively between four and six years (p> 0.001).

The ROC Curve Analysis: demonstrated that a patient with a score greater than 20 (hips) or 28.5 (knees) or 24 (uni knees) has eight times the risk of needing a revision within two years compared to a person with a score equal or less than the above numbers. Alternatively the ROC analysis predicted 73% of the revisions within three years for all three arthroplasty groups.

Plotting Scores Against Revisions: Plotting scores in groups of five demonstrated an incremental increase in the risk during the first two years. A person with a score greater than 40 has; for hips 24 times, knees 27 times and uni knees 69 times the risk of a revision within two years compared to a person with a score between 16 and 20.

Monitoring of the six month post surgical Oxford 12 score is another tool in the surgeon’s armamentarium for deciding which patients need closer monitoring following arthroplasty surgery.

Lumbar discectomy is now the operation of choice for lumbosacral radicular syndrome. Few studies of high quality have been performed on the post surgical management of these cases. The studies that have been reported compare one exercise regime to another.

The aim of this study was to compare long term outcomes of usual surgical advice, involving no formal post-surgical rehabilitation, with a non-aggravating six month gym rehabilitation programme post lumbar discectomy. This study is a prospective randomised controlled trial using a cohort followed for three years.

The patients were computer randomised into two groups. Group A, the control group followed usual surgical advice which was to resume normal activity as soon as pain allowed. Group B, undertook the gym rehabilitation programme. Inclusion criteria were: age 17 to 65 years, good health and no major medical problems. The surgical level had to be L3, L4, or L5. Patients were excluded if they had central neurological disorders, communication difficulties, any condition making gym-based exercises unsafe, or if the surgery was indicated for spinal infection, tumour or inflammatory disease. Patients were followed for a three year period using validated outcome measures (Roland-Morris Questionnaire and Oswestry Low Back Pain Index) and an annual Quality of Life (QoL) questionnaire. The annual questionnaire reported information on number of GP visits, other therapist visits, medication levels and time off work.

Ninety three participants were randomised; Control n=46 and trial n=47. Eighty nine participants completed the study. Randomisation achieved a balance of confounding factors, with the exception of work heaviness, where there were a greater number of participants in the very heavy and heavy categories in the trial group (P< 0.01). Functional outcome measures did not achieve statistical difference over the three year period. Other studies have shown these measures to be reliable for short term follow up but their reliability diminishes with time (1,2). Key findings of cumulative three year data for the QoL questionnaire were in the intent-to-treat analysis: fewer GP visits in the trial group p< 0.008; and per protocol: fewer episodes off work p< 0.01 (49% versus 15%), fewer days off p< 0.053 and fewer GP visits p< 0.009.

The results reveal an advantage in terms of episodes off work and GP visits for participants in Group B who completed the programme. Time off work is a significant consideration for funding providers. These results suggest that surgeons should consider referral of discectomy patients to appropriate post-surgical rehabilitation programmes.

Lumbar discectomy is now the operation of choice for lumbosacral radicular syndrome. Few studies of high quality have been performed on the post surgical management of these cases. The studies that have been reported compared one exercise regime to another. This study compares an exercise group with a true control group involving no exercise or formal rehabilitation. This is a randomized controlled trial comparing post surgical lumbar discectomy management regimes.

Ninety three lumbar discectomy patients were randomized to two groups. Group A; the control group followed usual surgical advice which was to resume normal activity as soon as pain allowed. Group B; undertook a six month supervised non aggravating gym rehab programme. Both groups were followed for a one year period using validated outcome measures and a questionnaire. The results are based on an intention-to-treat analysis.

Patients in both groups improved during the one year follow up period (P=0.001). However there was no statistical difference between groups at the clinical end point (Roland Morris P=0.83, Oswestry Low back index P=0.90). Group B patients returned to work seven days earlier than group A patients and had fewer days off work in the one year follow up period but this difference was not statistically significant.

There was no statistical advantage gained by the patients who performed the gym rehabilitation programme after one year follow up. These are the preliminary one year results of a three year follow up study.

Introduction Lumbar discectomy is now the operation of choice for lumbosacral radicular syndrome. Few studies of high quality have been performed on the post-surgical management of these cases (Ostelo RWJG, et al; Spine 2003). The studies that have been reported compared one exercise regime to another. This study compares an exercise group with a true control group involving no exercise or formal rehabilitation. This is a randomised controlled trial comparing post surgical lumbar discectomy management regimes.

Methods Ninety-three lumbar discectomy patients were randomised to two groups. Group A; the control group followed usual surgical advice which was to resume normal activity as soon as pain allowed. Group B; undertook a six month supervised non- aggravating gym rehab programme. Both groups were followed for a one year period using validated outcome measures and questionnaires (Roland Morris, Oswestry Low-back Score). The results are based on an intention-to-treat analysis.

Results Patients in both groups improved during the one-year follow-up period (P=0.001). However there was no statistical difference between groups at the clinical end point (Roland Morris P=0.83, Oswestry Low-back Index P=0.90). Group B patients returned to work seven days earlier than group A patients and had fewer days off work in the one year follow-up period but this difference was not statistically significant.

Discussion There was no statistical advantage gained by the patients who performed the gym rehabilitation programme after one year follow-up. These are the preliminary one-year results of a three-year follow-up study.