Aims. During total knee replacement (TKR), surgeons can choose whether or not to resurface the patella, with advantages and disadvantages of each approach. Recently, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommended always resurfacing the patella, rather than never doing so. NICE found insufficient evidence on selective resurfacing (surgeon’s decision based on intraoperative findings and symptoms) to make recommendations. If effective, selective resurfacing could result in optimal individualized patient care. This protocol describes a randomized controlled trial to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of primary TKR with always patellar resurfacing compared to selective patellar resurfacing. Methods. The PAtellar Resurfacing Trial (PART) is a patient- and assessor-blinded multicentre, pragmatic parallel two-arm randomized superiority trial of adults undergoing elective primary TKR for primary osteoarthritis at NHS hospitals in England, with an embedded internal pilot phase (ISRCTN 33276681). Participants will be randomly allocated intraoperatively on a 1:1 basis (stratified by centre and implant type (cruciate-retaining vs cruciate-sacrificing)) to always resurface or selectively resurface the patella, once the surgeon has confirmed sufficient patellar thickness for resurfacing and that constrained implants are not required. The primary analysis will compare the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) one year after surgery. Secondary outcomes include patient-reported outcome measures at three months, six months, and one year (Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, OKS, EuroQol five-dimension five-level questionnaire, patient satisfaction, postoperative complications, need for further surgery, resource use, and costs). Cost-effectiveness will be measured for the lifetime of the patient. Overall, 530 patients will be recruited to obtain 90% power to detect a four-point difference in OKS between the groups one year after surgery, assuming up to 40% resurfacing in the selective group. Conclusion. The trial findings will provide evidence about the clinical and cost-effectiveness of always patellar resurfacing compared to selective patellar resurfacing. This will inform future NICE guidelines on primary TKR and the role of selective patellar resurfacing. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(6):464–478

Abstract. Introduction. The role of patellar resurfacing in total knee arthroplasty remains controversial. We questioned the effect of patellar resurfacing on the early and late revision rates after total knee arthroplasty. Materials and Methods. We analysed the data of cumulative revisions of primary knee replacement from the NJR 19th Annual Report. NJR included secondary patellar resurfacing as a revision. We compared differences in the 3-year and 15-year revision rates between the patellar resurfacing and non-resurfacing for the different combinations of total knee replacements using a paired t-test. We performed subgroup analysis for the five combinations with the highest volumes. Results. Twenty-seven implant combinations had the 15-year revision rates reported. Patellar resurfacing group had lower mean 3-year revision rate of 1.68 (SD 0.7) compared to 2.02 (SD 0.9) in non-resurfacing group (p=0.05). However, 15-year revision rate was similar between the two groups (mean 5.7, SD 2.1 vs. mean 5.7, SD 2.2; p = 0.46). High volume implants showed that two combinations (NexGen CR and PS) had similar revision rates at 3 and 15 years between resurfacing and non-resurfacing groups. Three combinations (PFC Sigma CR and PS and Genesis 2 CR) had higher revision rate in non-resurfacing group at 3 years (p=0.01) and the difference persisted at 15 years (p=0.05). Conclusions. Although revision rate in total knee arthroplasty was higher without patellar resurfacing at 3 years, at 15 years the difference was not significant. However, the higher revision without patellar resurfacing can be prosthetic combination specific which surgeons need to be aware of

Abstract. Background. Accurate analysis of the patellar resurfacing is essential to better understand the etiology of patella-femoral problems and dissatisfaction following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). In the current published literature patellar resurfacing is analysed using 2D radiographs. With use of radiographs there is potential for error due to differences in limb positioning, projection, anatomic variability and difficulties in appreciating the cement-bone interface. So, we have developed a CT Scan based 3D modelled technique for accurate evaluation of patellar resurfacing. Methods. This technique for analyses of patellar resurfacing is based on the pre-operative and pos-operative CT Scan data of the patients who underwent TKA with patellar resurfacing. In the first step, accurately landmarked 3D models of pre-op patellae were created from pre-operative CT Scan data in ScanIP software. This model was imported in Geomagic design software and computational model of post-op patella was created. This was further analysed to determine the inclination of the patellar resection plane, patellar button positioning and articular volumetric restoration of the patella. Reliability and reproducibility of the technique was tested by comparing 3 sets of 10 measurements done by 2 independent investigators on 30 computational models of patellae derived from the data of randomly chosen 30 TKA patients. Results. The developed technique for analyses of patellar resurfacing is reliable and reproducible. The intraclass correlation co-efficient was >0.90 for the 10 measurements performed by two investigators. Conclusions. This technique can be used by surgeons and engineers for accurate analysis of the patellar resurfacing especially in patients with persistent patello-femoral problems after TKA. Declaration of Interest. (a) fully declare any financial or other potential conflict of interest

Whether or not to resurface the patella in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) remains controversial. Several methods of dealing with the patella exist: ALWAYS resurface; NEVER resurface; SOMETIMES resurface. There is good reason to consider selective patellar resurfacing. First, in an age of partial knee arthroplasty we have become more tuned in to analyzing patterns of arthritis. In TKA there is a high percentage of patients who do not have significant patellar cartilage wear or anterolateral knee pain. These patients may be candidates for leaving the patella unresurfaced in TKA. Arno et al found that 42% of patients had no significant patellar arthritis at the time of TKA. Roberts et al found that only 15% of patients should undergo patella resurfacing based on the presence of exposed bone on the patella; the other 85% could be considered suitable for leaving the patella unresurfaced. Second, despite a cumulative incidence of less than 5–10%, problems related to patellar resurfacing account for perhaps the most catastrophic complications encountered, with treatments that have limited success. These complications include fracture, avascular necrosis, extensor mechanism disruption, and anterior knee pain. Third, it is a fallacy to think that anterior knee pain (AKP) does not exist despite primary patellar resurfacing in TKA. Meftah (Ranawat) et al found that AKP persists in 30% of patients and new AKP develops in 10% of patients after TKA with patellar resurfacing. Barrack et al found that with patellar resurfacing the incidence of AKP is 28% in patients without preop AKP and 9% in those with preop AKP. They also found that without patellar resurfacing the incidence of new AKP was 14% and persistent AKP was 23%. Fourth, only roughly 44–64% of patients who undergo secondary patellar resurfacing for AKP after TKA with an unresurfaced patella actually get relief of their pain, suggesting that there is some other etiology of anterior knee pain. Residual component malalignment, boxy femoral components, PF overstuffing, referred pain or asymmetric resurfacing may explain ongoing pain. Finally, the data in well-designed studies show that selective patellar resurfacing can produce similar outcomes with and without resurfacing, particularly in those without significant patellar arthritis. In multiple studies, higher rates of secondary surgery occur when the patella is left unresurfaced in primary TKA, but this is for “pain” without clear etiology. On the other hand secondary surgery is rarely performed in TKA with patellar resurfacing for “pain” only, despite its high incidence. The quality of patellar cartilage at the time of primary TKA should be considered, as that may be the best indicator of whether a knee will do well without patellar resurfacing (that is, selective patellar resurfacing may be a better idea than never resurfacing the patella). While patellar resurfacing remains controversial in modern TKA, excellent outcomes are achievable with, and without, primary patellar resurfacing. Selectively leaving the patella unresurfaced when there is limited patellar arthritis may not only be highly effective, but it may also limit the incidence of secondary resurfacing that may occur with more substantial patellar arthritis while also minimizing the risk of some of the devastating complications that can occur due to patellar resurfacing in TKA

Introduction. Patellar resurfacing is performed in more than 90% of primary total knee arthroplasties (TKAs) in the United States, yet far fewer patellae are resurfaced internationally. Multiple randomized controlled trials have shown decreased revision rates in patients with resurfaced patellas (RP) vs. non-resurfaced (NR). However, most of these studies showed no difference in patient satisfaction, anterior knee pain, or knee society scores. (Figure 1) Given uncertain benefits, the purpose of this study was to determine if the rates of patellar resurfacing have changed over the past 10 years worldwide. Methods. Data was obtained via direct correspondence with registry administrators or abstracted from the annual reports of six national joint registries: Australia, Denmark, England, New Zealand, Norway, and Sweden. Rates of patellar resurfacing between 2003 and 2013 were collected. Where data was available, subgroup analysis was performed to examine revision rates among RP and NR TKAs. Results. The average rates of patellar resurfacing from 2003 to 2013 ranged from 5% (Norway) to 71% (Denmark). Three countries showed a decreased rate of patellar resurfacing over this time period while two demonstrated an increase. The largest decrease in resurfacing rates was in Sweden (15% to 2%), while the biggest increase was in Australia (44% to 53%). (Figure 2) In 2010, 48,367 of 137,813 (35%) primary TKAs from all six countries were resurfaced. (Figure 3) Among RP and NR TKAs, Australia documented a 10-year cumulative revision rate (CRR) of 4.9% and 6.0%, respectively. Sweden showed a 10-year CRR of 4% in both groups. Conclusion. While not all national joint registries report rates of patellar resurfacing, it is clear that most countries outside of the US continue to resurface a much smaller proportion of patellas in primary TKA. Worldwide, the rates of patellar resurfacing have changed little in the past decade

Introduction. The degree of cartilage degeneration assessed intraoperatively may not be sufficient as a criterion for patellar resurfacing in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). However, single-photon emission tomography/computed tomography (SPECT/CT) is useful for detecting osteoarthritic involvement deeper in the subchondral bone. The purpose of the study was to determine whether SPECT/CT reflected the cartilage lesion underneath the patella in patients with end-stage osteoarthritis (OA) and whether clinical outcomes after TKA without patellar resurfacing differed according to the severity of patellofemoral (PF) OA determined by visual assessment and SPECT/CT findings. Methods. This study included 206 knees which underwent TKA. The degree of cartilage degeneration was graded intraoperatively according to the International Cartilage Repair Society grading system. Subjects were classified into four groups according to the degree of bone tracer uptake (BTU) on SPECT/CT in the PF joint. The Feller's patella score and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) were assessed preoperatively and postoperative 1 and 2 years. Results. The increased BTU in the PF joint was associated with more severe degenerative cartilage changes underneath the patella (P < 0.001). The risk for the presence of denudated cartilage was greater in the high uptake group (odds ratio = 5.89). There was no association between clinical outcomes and visual grading of patellar cartilage degeneration or the degree of BTU on SPECT/CT. Discussion and Conclusions. The visual assessment of the degree of cartilage degeneration underneath the patella and preoperative SPECT/CT evaluation of the PF joint were not predictive of clinical outcome after TKA with unresurfaced patella

Background. The decision to resurface the patella during total knee arthroplasty remains controversial. Aim of our study was to evaluate the functional difference between patients undergoing medial rotation knee (MRK) replacement with and without patellar resurfacing at our hospital. Methods. We did a retrospective analysis of patients undergoing MRK total knee replacement (Matortho) at our hospital between 2008 and 2017 performed by 2 surgeons. Patients were recalled for a clinical review from Oct 2017 for recording of Oxford knee, Baldini and Ferrel scores. Mann-Whitney U test was used for non-parametric data (SPSS v24). Results. Of the 104(49 males) patients, 62 had patellar resurfacing. Age and sex distribution was similar in both groups. The mean follow up period was 74.45 months in non- resurfaced group and 54.93 months in resurfaced group. The Median (Range) pre-operative Oxford knee scores were similar in both groups − 15(4–42) in non-resurfaced group and 14(1–44) in resurfaced group. The median OKS at follow-up were 36(12–47) in non-resurfaced group and 37(9–48) in resurfaced group. The Patellar scores were slightly better in the resurfaced group – Baldini score median (range) (90 (25–100) in non resurfaced v/s 100(30–100) in resurfaced), Ferrel score (median (range) 25(12–30) in non-resurfaced v/s 28(10–30) in resurfaced, p 0.042). The patellofemoral component of the OKS (Q5 + Q7 + Q12) median (range) showed an improvement from 3(1–11) to 6.5 (3–11) in non-resurfaced group and from 3(0–12) to 8 (2–12) (p 0.039) in resurfaced group. Conclusion. Although the overall functional knee scores in non-resurfaced and resurfaced groups were same, we found a statistically significant difference in Ferrel score and in the patellofemoral component of OKS between the 2 groups of MRK knee replacement suggesting specific benefits of patellar resurfacing

Introduction and Aims: It is probable that the success of total knee arthroplasty without patellar resurfacing is influenced by the design of the femoral trochlea. The aim of this study was to compare measures of clinical outcome including gait analysis between total knee arthroplasty with and without patellar resurfacing using a prosthesis compatible with the native patella. Method: A prospective trial of 78 patients was performed, with 43 total knee arthroplasty randomised to receive patellar resurfacing and 48 to receive patellar retention. The mean duration of follow-up was 3.2 years (range 2.0–4.7 years). Patients were assessed pre- and post-surgery using the Knee Society Clinical Rating System, the Knee Pain Scale, and a Patellar Function Score. A subset of 34 patients also underwent pre- and post-surgery analysis of knee kinematics and kinetics during walking. Results: At a minimum two-year follow-up, total knee arthroplasty with patellar resurfacing had significantly lower Knee Society knee scores (Mann Whitney U test; p = 0.036). Total knee arthroplasty with patellar resurfacing exhibited a greater degree of knee flexion contracture (Mann-Whitney U test; p = 0.020) and significantly less knee extension at heelstrike during walking in those subjects undergoing gait analysis (Independent t-test; p = 0.013). The presence of a knee flexion contracture was a significant predictor of post-surgery anterior knee pain (Exp β = 4.1, CI: 1.1 to 14.9, p = 0.033). Post-surgery Knee Society function scores and Patellar Function Scores were significantly better in those patients with total knee arthroplasty without patellar resurfacing (Mann-Whitney test; p = 0.031 and 0.017 respectively). Conclusion: In this study using an anatomically designed femoral component with a domed patellar prosthesis, total knee arthroplasty with patellar resurfacing exhibited inferior clinical results as compared to total knee arthroplasty with patellar retention. Total knee arthroplasty with patellar resurfacing exhibited significant limitation of knee extension, which was significantly associated with the presence of post-surgery anterior knee pain (p = 0.033)

Introduction. We sought to determine the 10-year survivorship of single-radius, posterior-stabilized total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in Asian patients. We also aimed to determine whether the long-term clinical and radiographic results differed between patients with and without patellar resurfacing. Materials and Methods. This retrospective study included 148 (115 patients) consecutive single-radius, posterior-stabilized TKAs. Ten-year survivorship analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method with additional surgery for any reason as the end-point. Furthermore, long-term clinical and radiographic results of 109 knees (74%; 84 patients) with more than a 10-year follow-up were analyzed. Ten-year survivorship and long-term outcomes after surgery were determined, and outcomes were compared between patients with and without patellar resurfacing. Results. Cumulative survival rate of the single-radius posterior-stabilized TKA of 148 knees was 97.7% (95% confidence interval, 93.1%–99.3%) at 10 years after surgery. Three knees had additional surgery during the 10-year follow-up because of one case of instability and two periprosthetic infections. Mean postoperative Knee Society knee score and function score were 97 and 75, respectively. There was no aseptic loosening of the prosthesis, even though a non-progressive radiolucent line was found in 10 (9%) knees. There were no differences in postoperative scores and degree of patellar tilt and displacement between patients with and without patellar resurfacing. Conclusions. Single-radius, posterior-stabilized TKA showed satisfactory long-term clinical and radiographic outcomes in Asian patients regardless of patellar resurfacing, with comparable survivorship to that reported in westerners

Background. Secondary osteonecrosis of the knee (SOK) generally occurs in relatively young patients in their working years; at advanced stages of SOK, the only viable surgical option is total knee arthroplasty (TKA). We conducted a retrospective study to investigate implant survivorship, clinical and radiographic outcomes, and complications of cemented TKA with/without patellar resurfacing for SOK. Methods. Thirty-eight cemented TKAs in 27 patients with non-traumatic SOK with a mean age 43 years (range 17–65) were retrospectively reviewed. Twenty-one patients (78%) were female. Mean body mass index was 31 kg/m. 2. (range 20–48); 11 patients (41%) received bilateral TKAs. Twenty patients (74%) had a history of corticosteroid use and 18% had a history of alcohol abuse. Patellar osteonecrosis was coincidentally found in six knees (16%), all of which had no anterior knee pain and had no patellofemoral joint collapse. The mean follow-up was 7 years (range 2–12). Knee Society Score (KSS) and radiographic outcomes were evaluated at 6 weeks, 1 year, then every 2–3 years thereafter. Results. Ninety-two percent had implant survivorship free from revision with significant improvement in KSS. Causes of revision included aseptic tibial loosening (one), deep infection (one), and instability with patellofemoral issues (one). Four of six cases also with patellar osteonecrosis received resurfacing, including one with a periprosthetic patellar fracture after minor trauma, with satisfactory clinical results after conservative treatment. None of the unrevised knees had progressive radiolucent lines or evidence of loosening. Non-resurfacing of the patella, use of a stem extension or a varus-valgus constrained prosthesis constituted 18%, 8% and 3% of knees, respectively. Conclusion. Cemented TKAs with selective stem extension in patients with SOK had satisfactory implant survivorship and reliable outcomes at a mean of 7 years. Patellar resurfacing is unnecessary in younger patients with no symptoms of anterior knee pain and no patellar collapse radiographically. For any figures or tables, please contact the authors directly

Introduction: Joint replacement has a low mortality rate, few adverse occurrences, excellent survivorship and is considered a cost-effective intervention to reduce disability in the community. However, the assessment of complications and survivorship fail to measure the success of joint replacement in achieving pain relief and restoration of functional ability. The aim of this large cross-sectional postal survey was to provide information on the prevalence of pain, disability, poor quality of life and patient dissatisfaction at 1–3 years after a range of lower limb orthopaedic surgeries in the UK. Patient and Methods: A questionnaire was posted to all 3,125 consecutive alive patients who underwent a primary THR, hip resurfacing, TKR, UKR or patellar resurfacing at the Avon Orthopaedic Centre between January 2004 – April 2006. The questionnaire included the WOMAC, HOOS/KOOS quality of life scale and a validated satisfaction scale. All questionnaires are scored on a 0–100 scale (worst-best) and a poor outcome was defined as a score of ≤ 50 on the outcome measure. Results: Completed questionnaires were received from 2,085 patients (response rate of 67%). Patients had a mean age of 67 years and 42% were male. The mean length of follow-up was 28 months (range 14–44 months). 911 patients had a THR, 157 patients had a hip resurfacing, 866 patients had a TKR, 100 patients had a UKR and 51 patients had a patellar resurfacing. Pain: the prevalence of poor outcomes were 6% of patients with a THR, 4% with a hip resurfacing, 12% with a TKR, 9% with a UKR and 31% with a patellar resurfacing. Function: the prevalence of poor outcomes were 12% of patients with a THR, 4% with a hip resurfacing, 16% with a TKR, 9% with a UKR and 35% with a patellar resurfacing. Hip-related quality of life: the prevalence of poor outcomes were 26% of patients with a THR, 12% with a hip resurfacing, 33% with a TKR, 32% with a UKR and 67% with a patellar resurfacing. Satisfaction: the prevalence of poor outcomes were 13% of patients with a THR, 8% with a hip resurfacing, 17% with a TKR, 11% with a UKR and 45% with a patellar resurfacing. Conclusion: This survey has provided descriptive data on the prevalence of patient-reported levels of pain, disability, poor joint-related quality of life and dissatisfaction after lower limb arthroplasty. It is important that patient-reported outcomes after joint replacement are rigorously assessed in order to provide information on which patients do poorly after surgery, with the aim of targeting these patients with an intervention to improve their outcome. North Bristol Trust Small Grants Scheme provided funding for the consumables for this study

INTRODUCTION. In computer-aided total knee arthroplasty (TKA), surgical navigation systems (SNS) allow accurate tibio-femoral joint (TFJ) prosthesis implantation only. Unfortunately, TKA alters also normal patello-femoral joint (PFJ) functioning. Particularly, without patellar resurfacing, PFJ kinematics is influenced by TFJ implantation; with resurfacing, this is further affected by patellar implantation. Patellar resurfacing is performed only by visual inspections and a simple calliper, i.e. without computer assistance. Patellar resurfacing and motion via patient-specific bone morphology had been assessed successfully in-vitro and in-vivo in pilot studies aimed at including these evaluations in traditional navigated TKA. The aim of this study was to report the current experiences in-vivo in two patient cohorts during TKA with patellar resurfacing. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Twenty patients with knee gonarthrosis were divided in two cohorts of ten subjects each and implanted with as many fixed-bearing posterior-stabilised prostheses (NRG® and Triathlon®, Stryker®-Orthopaedics, Mahwah, NJ-USA) with patellar resurfacing. Fifteen patients were implanted; five patients of the Triathlon cohort are awaiting hospital admission. TKAs were performed using two SNS (Stryker®-Leibinger, Freiburg-Germany). In addition to the traditional knee SNS (KSNS), the novel procedure implies the use of the patellar SNS (PSNS) equipped with a specially-designed patellar tracker. Standard navigated procedures for intact TFJ survey were performed using KSNS. These were performed also with PSNS together intact PFJ survey. Standard navigated procedures for TFJ implantation were performed using KSNS. During patellar resurfacing, the patellar cutting jig was fixed at the desired position with a plane probe into the saw-blade slot; PSNS captured tracker data to calculate bone cut level/orientation. After sawing, resection accuracy was assessed using a plane probe. TFJ/PFJ kinematics were captured with all three trial components in place for possible adjustments, and after final component cementing. A calliper and pre/post-TKA X-rays were used to check for patellar thickness/alignment. RESULTS. This protocol was performed successfully in TKAs, resulting in 30 min longer TKA. Final lower limb misalignment was within 0.5°, resurfaced patella was 0.4±1.2 mm thinner than the native, and patellar cut was 0.4°±4.1° laterally tilted. Final PFJ kinematics was taken within the reference normality in both series. PFJ flexion, tilt and medio-lateral shift range were 66.9°±8.5° (minimum÷maximum, 15.6°÷82.5°), 8.0°±3.1° (−5.3°÷2.8°), and 5.3±2.0 mm (−5.5÷0.2 mm), respectively. Significant (p<0.005) correlations were found between the internal/external rotation of the femoral component and PFJ tilt (R. 2. =0.41), and between the mechanical axis on the sagittal plane and PFJ flexion (R. 2. =0.44) and antero-posterior shift (R. 2. =0.45). Patellar implantation parameters were confirmed by X-ray inspections. Discrepancies in thickness up to 5 mm were observed between SNS- and calliper-based measurements. CONCLUSIONS. These results support relevance/efficacy of patellar tracking in in-vivo navigated TKA and may contribute to a more comprehensive assessment of the original whole knee, i.e. including also PFJ. Patellar preparation would be supported for suitable component positioning in case of resurfacing, but, conceptually, also in not-resurfacing if SNS does not reveal PFJ abnormalities., Using this procedure in the future, TFJ/PFJ abnormalities can be corrected intra-operatively by more cautious bone cut preparation and prosthetic positioning on the femur, tibia and patella

Background. The management of the patella during primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is controversial. Despite the majority of patients reporting excellent outcomes following TKA, a common complaint is anterior knee pain. Resurfacing of the patella at the time of initial surgery has been proposed as a means of preventing anterior knee pain, however current evidence, including four recent meta-analyses, has failed to show clear superiority of patellar resurfacing. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of patellar resurfacing compared to non-resurfacing in TKA. Methods. We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis using a decision analytic model to represent a hypothetical patient cohort undergoing primary TKA. Each patient will receive a TKA either with the Patella Resurfaced or Not Resurfaced. Following surgery, patients can transition to one of three chronic health states: 1) Well Post-operative, 2) Patellofemoral Pain (PFP), or 3) Serious Adverse Event (AE), which we have defined as any event requiring Revision TKA, including: loosening/lysis, infection, instability, or fracture (Figure 1). We obtained revision rates following TKA for both resurfaced and unresurfaced cohorts using data from the 2014 Australian Registry. This data was chosen due to similarities between Australian and North American practice patterns and patient demographics, as well as the availability of longer term follow up data, up to 14 years postoperative. Our effectiveness outcome for the model was the quality-adjusted life year (QALY). We used utility scores obtained from the literature to calculate QALYs for each health state. Direct procedure costs were obtained from our institution's case costing department, and the billing fees for each procedure. We estimated cost-effectiveness from a Canadian publicly funded health care system perspective. All costs and quality of life outcomes were discounted at a rate of 5%. All costs are presented in 2015 Canadian dollars. Results. Our cost-effectiveness analysis suggests that TKA with patella resurfacing is a dominant procedure. Patients who receive primary TKA with non-resurfaced patella had higher associated costs over the first 14 years postoperative ($16,182 vs $15,720), and slightly lower quality of life (5.37 QALYs vs 6.01 QALYs). The revision rate for patellar resurfacing was 1.3%. If the rate of secondary resurfacing procedures is 0.5% or less, there is no difference in costs between the two procedures. Discussion. Our results suggest that, up to 14 years postoperative, resurfacing the patella in primary TKA is cost-effective compared to primary TKA without patellar resurfacing, due to the higher revision rate in this cohort of patients for secondary resurfacing. Our sensitivity analysis suggests that, among surgical practices that do not routinely perform secondary resurfacing procedures (estimated rate at our institution is 0.3%) there is no significant difference in costs. Although our results suggest that patella resurfacing results in higher quality of life, our model is limited by the availability and validity of utility outcome estimates reported in the literature for the long term follow up of patients following TKA with or without patella resurfacing and secondary resurfacing procedures

Introduction: Existing data in the literature is supporting either patellar retention or patellar resurfacing during primary TKA. There is no clear answer for the question in which cases the patella should be retained or resurfaced during primary TKA. Materials and Methods: In this prospective study 2 groups of patients with a mean follow up of 34 months after TKA were compared. 83 patients (98 TKA) were implanted with a TKA with patellar retention (group 1) while 93 TKA (86 patients) were done including a patellar resurfacing (group 2). The patients were randomized according to the year of birth. The NexGen® MBK and the LPS were implanted. A dome shaped patellar prosthesis with 3 pegs was used for patellar resurfacing. Clinical Outcomes were based on the knee society score parameters, anterior knee pain, patient satisfaction, feeling of instability, step test while component position and limb alignment were measured by standard radiographs. Results: No statistical differences between both groups with regard to post-operative anterior knee pain and knee society score were found. We found no pre-operative predictor factors for the development of post-operative anterior knee pain for each group and both together. Patellar maltracking was worse in group 1 than in the resurfaced group (3 cases with patellar subluxation in group 1 versus 2 cases in group 2). Conclusion: According to the not significant differences for the clinical outcomes between group 1 and 2 we routinely retain the patella. Patellar resurfacing is done only in selective cases

Introduction: Patellar management and related complications remain a major concern in total knee arthroplasty. Multiple problems can ensue in both resurfaced (fracture, loosening) and non-resurfaced patellae (pain). Objective: We aim to evaluate the impact of secondary patellar resurfacing in patients with patellar related anterior knee pain having undergone a mobile bearing primary total knee arthroplasty without resurfacing. Materials and methods: 2950 primary LCS mobile bearing total knee arthroplasties without patellar resurfacing were carried out between March 1992 and March 22003 by the senior author. Twelve patients underwent secondary patellar resurfacing for patellar related anterior knee pain. There were equal numbers male and female with a mean age of 72.1 years. There was a mean time of 27.9 months to secondary resurfacing procedure. We evaluated both clinical and radiological outcomes of this procedure. Results: 0.4% patients required a secondary procedure. Only 3 had an unequivocal improvement in their symptoms. No morbidity was noted from the procedure. Conclusions: The success rate of secondary patellar resurfacing is poor and we feel if this is to be offered to the patient for ongoing patellar related anterior knee pain that they be counseled carefully

Abstract. Introduction. Component mal-positioning in total hip replacement (THR) and total knee replacement (TKR) can increase the risk of revision for various reasons. Compared to conventional surgery, relatively improved accuracy of implant positioning can be achieved using computer assisted technologies including navigation, patient-specific jigs, and robotic systems. However, it is not known whether application of these technologies has improved prosthesis survival in the real-world. This study aimed to compare risk of revision for all-causes following primary THR and TKR, and revision for dislocation following primary THR performed using computer assisted technologies compared to conventional technique. Methods. We performed an observational study using National Joint Registry data. All adult patients undergoing primary THR and TKR for osteoarthritis between 01/04/2003 to 31/12/2020 were eligible. Patients who received metal-on-metal bearing THR were excluded. We generated propensity score weights, using Sturmer weight trimming, based on: age, gender, ASA grade, side, operation funding, year of surgery, approach, and fixation. Specific additional variables included position and bearing for THR and patellar resurfacing for TKR. For THR, effective sample sizes and duration of follow up for conventional versus computer-guided and robotic-assisted analyses were 9,379 and 10,600 procedures, and approximately 18 and 4 years, respectively. For TKR, effective sample sizes and durations of follow up for conventional versus computer-guided, patient-specific jigs, and robotic-assisted groups were 92,579 procedures over 18 years, 11,665 procedures over 8 years, and 644 procedures over 3 years, respectively. Outcomes were assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis and expressed using hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results. For THR, analysis comparing computer-guided versus conventional technique demonstrated HR of 0.771 (95%CI 0.573–1.036) p=0.085, and 0.594 (95%CI 0.297–1.190) p=0.142, for revision for all-causes and dislocation, respectively. When comparing robotic-assisted versus conventional technique, HR for revision for all-causes was 0.480 (95%CI 0.067 –3.452) p=0.466. For TKR, compared to conventional surgery, HR for all-cause revision for procedures performed using computer guidance and patient-specific jigs were 0.967 (95% CI 0.888–1.052) p=0.430, and 0.937 (95% CI 0.708–1.241) p=0.65, respectively. HR for analysis comparing robotic-assisted versus conventional technique was 2.0940 (0.2423, 18.0995) p = 0.50. Conclusions. This is the largest study investigating this topic utilising propensity score analysis methods. We did not find a statistically significant difference in revision for all-causes and dislocation although these analyses are underpowered to detect smaller differences in effect size between groups. Additional comparison for revision for dislocation between robotic-assisted versus conventionally performed THR was not performed as this is a subset of revision for all-causes and wide confidence intervals were already observed for that analysis. It is also important to mention this NJR analysis study is of an observational study design which has inherent limitations. Nonetheless, this is the most feasible study design to answer this research question requiring use of a large data set due to revision being a rare outcome. Declaration of Interest. (b) declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research reported:I declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research project

During total knee replacement (TKR), surgical navigation systems (SNS) allow accurate prosthesis component implantation by tracking the tibio-femoral joint (TFJ) kinematics in the original articulation at the beginning of the operation, after relevant trial components implantation, and, ultimately, after final component implantation and cementation. It is known that TKR also alters normal patello-femoral joint (PFJ) kinematics resulting frequently in PFJ disorders and TKR failure. More importantly, patellar tracking in case of resurfacing is further affected by patellar bone preparation and relevant component positioning. The traditional technique used to perform patellar resurfacing, even in navigated TKR, is based only on visual inspection of the patellar articular aspect for clamping patellar cutting jig and on a simple calliper to check for patellar thickness before and after bone cut, and, thus, without any computer assistance. Even though the inclusion in in-vivo navigated TKR of a procedure for supporting also patellar resurfacing based on patient-specific bone morphology seems fundamental, this have been completely disregarded till now, whose efficacy being assessed only in-vitro. This procedure has been developed, together with relevant software and surgical instrumentation, as an extension of current SNS, i.e. TKR is navigated, at the same time measuring the effects of every surgical action on PFJ kinematics. The aim of this study was to report on the first in-vivo experiences during TKR with patellar resurfacing. Four patients affected by primary gonarthrosis were implanted with a fixed bearing posterior-stabilised prosthesis (NRG, Stryker®-Orthopaedics, Mahwah, NJ-USA) with patellar resurfacing. All TKR were performed by means of two SNS (Stryker®-Leibinger, Freiburg, Germany) with the standard femoral/tibial trackers, the pointer, and a specially-designed patellar tracker. The novel procedure for patellar tracking was approved by the local ethical committee; the patients gave informed consent prior the surgery. This procedure implies the use of a second system, i.e. the patellar SNS (PSNS), with dedicated software for supporting patellar resurfacing and relative data processing/storing, in addition to the traditional knee SNS (KSNS). TFJ anatomical survey and kinematics data are shared between the two. Before surgery, both systems were initialised and the patellar tracker was assembled with a sterile procedure by shaping a metal grid mounted with three markers to be tracked by PSNS only. The additional patellar-resection-plane and patellar-cut-verification probes were instrumented with a standard tracker and a relevant reference frame was defined on these by digitisation with PSNS. Afterwards, the procedures for standard navigation were performed to calculate preoperative joint deformities and TFJ kinematics. The anatomical survey was performed also with PSNS, with relevant patellar anatomical reference frame definition and PFJ kinematics assessment according to a recent proposal. Standard procedures for femoral and tibial component implantation, and TFJ kinematics assessment were then performed by using relevant trial components. Afterwards, the procedure for patellar resection begun. Once the surgeon had arranged and fixed the patellar cutting jig at the desired position, the patellar-resection-plane probe was inserted into the slot for the saw blade. With this in place, the PSNS captured tracker data to calculate the planned level of patellar bone cut and the patellar cut orientation. Then the cut was executed, and the accuracy of this actual bone cut was assessed by means of the patellar-cut-verification probe. The trial patellar component was positioned, and, with all three trial components in place, TFJ and PFJ kinematics were assessed. Possible adjustments in component positioning could still be performed, until both kinematics were satisfactory. Finally, final components were implanted and cemented, and final TFJ and PFJ kinematics were acquired. A sterile calliper and pre- and post-implantation lower limb X-rays were used to check for the patellar thickness and final lower limb alignment. The novel surgical technique was performed successfully in all four cases without complication, resulting in 30 min longer TKR. The final lower limb alignment was within 0.5°, the resurfaced patella was 0.4±1.3 mm thinner than in the native, the patellar cut was 1.5°±3.0° laterally tilted. PFJ kinematics was taken within the reference normality. The patella implantation parameters were confirmed also by X-ray inspection; discrepancies in thickness up to 5 mm were observed between SNS- and calliper-based measurements. At the present experimental phase, a second separate PSNS was utilised not to affect the standard navigated TKR. The results reported support relevance, feasibility and efficacy of patellar tracking and PFJ kinematics assessment in in-vivo navigated TKR. The encouraging in-vivo results may lay ground for the design of a future clinical patella navigation system the surgeon could use to perform a more comprehensive assessment of the original whole knee anatomy and kinematics, i.e. including also PFJ. Patellar bone preparation would be supported for suitable patellar component positioning in case of resurfacing but, conceptually, also in not resurfacing if patellar anatomy and tracking assessment by SNS reveals no abnormality. After suitable adjustment and further tests, in the future if this procedure will be routinely applied during navigated TKR, abnormalities at both TFJ and PFJ can be corrected intra-operatively by more cautious bone cut preparation on the femur, tibia and also patella, in case of resurfacing, and by correct prosthetic component positioning

Abstract. Background. Conventional TKR aims for neutral mechanical alignment which may result in a smaller lateral distal femoral condyle resection than the implant thickness. We aim to explore the mismatch between implant thickness and bone resection using 3D planning software used for Patient Specific Instrumentation (PSI) TKR. Methods. This is a retrospective anatomical study from pre-operative MRI 3D models for PSI TKR. Cartilage mapping allowed us to recreate the native anatomy, enabling us to quantify the mismatch between the distal lateral femoral condyle resection and the implant thickness. Results. We modelled 292 knees from PSI TKR performed between 2012 and 2015. There were 225 varus knees and 67 valgus knees, with mean supine hip-knee-angle of 5.6±3.1 degrees and 3.6±4.6 degrees, respectively. In varus knees, the mean cartilage loss from medial and lateral femoral condyle was 2.3±0.7mm and 1.1±0.8mm respectively; the mean overstuffing of the lateral condyle 1.9±2.2mm. In valgus knees, the mean cartilage loss from medial and lateral condyle was 1.4±0.8mm and 1.5±0.9mm respectively; the mean overstuffing of the lateral condyle was 4.1±1.9mm. Conclusions. Neutral alignment TKR often results in overstuffing of the lateral condyle. This may increase the patello-femoral pressure at the lateral facet in flexion. Anterior knee pain may be persistent even after patellar resurfacing due to tight lateral retinacular structures. An alternative method of alignment such as anatomic alignment may minimise this problem

Background. Despite the excellent clinical success of total knee arthroplasty (TAK), controversy remains concerning whether or not to resurface the patella. This has led to a number of randomized controlled trials. Randomized controlled trials constitute the most reliable source of evidence for the evaluation of the efficacy of a potential intervention. But most of these studies include all degree of osteoarthritis of the patellofemoral joint. So we did this prospective study to compare clinical and radiological outcomes after TKA with or without patellar resurfacing in patients with grade IV osteoarthritis on patellofemoral joint. Materials and Methods. 123 cases (93 patients) with Kellgren-Lawrence grade IV osteoarthritis on patellofemoral joint were enrolled for this study. At the operating room, they were randomly assigned to undergo patella resurfacing (62 cases) or patella retention (61 cases). Among them, 114 cases that could be followed for more than 2 years were included in this study (resurfacing group; 59 cases, retention group; 55 cases). When patellar retention was performed, osteophytes of the patella were removed and marginal electrocauterization was carried out. Preoperative and postoperative clinical outcomes were evaluated and compared regarding the Hospital for Special Surgery Patellar (HSSP) score (total 100 point; anterior knee pain, functional limitation, tenderness, crepitus, Q-strength). We also compared Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS) and WOMAC scores, and range of motion (ROM). We also compared radiological outcomes at the final follow up, with regards to mechanical axis of the lower limb, patella tilt and patella congruence angle between two groups. Results. Average HSSP score was 85 in resurfacing group, 83 in retention group, which were showing no significant differences between groups (p=.75). Anterior knee pain subscale also showed no significant differences between groups (40 in resurfacing group, 36 in retention group, p= 0.52). HSS score improved to 94 points in resurfacing group and 95 points in retention group showing no significant difference (p=.92). While WOMAC score and range of motion was 32 point and 128°±10.5° in resurfacing group, respectively, they were 29 point and 126°±11.5° in retention group, without significant inter-group difference (p>.05). There were no differences between two groups in mechanical axis of the lower limb and patella tilt, patella congruence (p>0.05). Conclusion. Clinical and radiological outcomes were ‘good’ after TKA with or without patellar resurfacing in patients with high grade osteoarthritis of the patellofemoral joint without significant differences. Thus, this study suggested that TKA without patellar resurfacing is a good treatment option in patients with high grade osteoarthritis of the patellofemoral joint

Introduction: The majority of patients with osteoarthritis of the knee suffer from femorotibial pain with a smaller proportion suffering predominantly patello-femoral symptoms. No clear consensus exists as to the need for patellar resurfacing when performing total knee replacement for patients with symptomatic femorotibial osteoarthritis but without prominent patello-femoral symptomatic and radiographic disease. Aims: To identify the advantages and disadvantages of both resurfacing and non-resurfacing of the patella during cemented total knee replacement performed for osteoarthritis predominantly of the femorotibial joint. To objectively clarify the rationale for the use of either procedure in clinical practice. Methods: Prospective randomized double blinded clinical trail. Patients with osteoarthritis of the knee and principally femorotibial symptoms were included. Patients with rheumatoid arthritis, gross deformity of the knee and gross radiological or clinical patello-femoral arthritis were excluded. The implant used was a cemented posterior stabilized AMK (Depuy, Leeds UK) prosthesis. Pre-operative American Knee Society Score, SF-36 questionnaire and WOMAC scores were calculated for each patient. These instruments were repeated and combined with clinical and radiological follow up at 3 months, 6 months and one year. Results: 58 patients were recruited into the study, 53 of whom completed follow-up and were included in the analysis. Baseline characteristics were similar in each group. Operating room time was less in the non-resurfaced group (p< 0.05). At one year, no patient in either group had needed to undergo a revision procedure. There was no difference between the resurfaced and non-resurfaced groups in terms of global functional outcome as measured by SF36 and WOMAC scores at one-year post operatively. The American Knee Society score showed no difference between the two groups (p=0.86) at one-year post surgery. Conclusion: There is no significant difference in clinical outcome at one year following surgery vis-à-vis those who did and did not have patellar resurfacing performed during knee replacement for predominantly femorotibial symptomatic osteoarthritis. Patellar resurfacing as a procedure is not without complications. In patients with osteoarthritis of the knee and predominantly femorotibial disease based on clinical and radiographic findings, we do not advocate the routine use of patellar resurfacing