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

Whether to resurface the patella during a primary Total Knee Replacement (TKR) performed as a treatment of degenerative osteoarthritis remain a controversial issue. Patellar resurfacing was introduced because early implants were not designed to accommodate the native patella in an anatomic fashion during the range of motion. Complications related to patella resurfacing became a primary concern and have been associated with the variable revision rates often report post TKR. Subsequent modifications in implant design have been made to offer the surgeon option of leaving the patella un-resurfaced. Numerous clinical trials have been done to determine the superiority of each option. Unfortunately, there is little consensus and surgeon preference remains the primary variable. One of the major reasons given to support patella resurfacing is to eliminate Anterior Knee Pain post operatively. However, studies have shown that this problem was not exclusively found in non-resurfaced patients so the author conclude that anterior knee pain is probably related to component design or to the details of the surgical technique, such as component rotation rather that whether or not the patella is resurfaced. An increasing rate of complications with the extensor mechanism after patellar resurfacing led to the concept of selective resurfacing of the patella in TKR. Decision making algorithms with basis of clinical, radiographic and intraoperative parameters have been developed to determine which patients are suitable for patella resurfacing and which are suitable for patella non-resurfacing. Finally, the continued study of this topic with longer follow up term in randomized, controlled, clinical trials remains essential in our understanding of patella in TKR. The development of joint registry will allow surgeons to draw conclusions on the basis of larger numbers of patients and will improve the reporting of the results of patellar non resurfacing in clinical trials. In general, surgeons in United States always resurface while their counterparts in Europe tend to never resurface

The treatment of osteochondral lesions and osteoarthritis remains an ongoing clinical challenge in orthopaedics. This review examines the current research in the fields of cartilage regeneration, osteochondral defect treatment, and biological joint resurfacing, and reports on the results of clinical and pre-clinical studies. We also report on novel treatment strategies and discuss their potential promise or pitfalls. Current focus involves the use of a scaffold providing mechanical support with the addition of chondrocytes or mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs), or the use of cell homing to differentiate the organism’s own endogenous cell sources into cartilage. This method is usually performed with scaffolds that have been coated with a chemotactic agent or with structures that support the sustained release of growth factors or other chondroinductive agents. We also discuss unique methods and designs for cell homing and scaffold production, and improvements in biological joint resurfacing. There have been a number of exciting new studies and techniques developed that aim to repair or restore osteochondral lesions and to treat larger defects or the entire articular surface. The concept of a biological total joint replacement appears to have much potential. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2013;2:193–9

Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing enjoyed a period of increased global clinical application beginning in the early to mid-2000's. This tapered off quickly, to the point that it is now a niche surgery. One naturally asks the question, why?. The answers are quite simple: 1) There are no clinical benefits when compared with total hip replacements (THA). While many authors have tried valiantly to demonstrate a benefit clinically to performing a resurfacing over a THA, they have simply been unable to convincingly do so. The procedures produce equivalent clinical results. Many claims, such as allowing a patient greater activity levels and return to sports are clearly heavily biased depending on patient selection. The only credible claim to an advantage over THA that can be made regarding resurfacing implants is indeed there is preservation of host bone of the femoral head and neck. However, this retained bone also reduces the femoral head-to-neck ratio compared to a THA and leads to the potential for bone-on-bone impingement that would not be seen if the neck was resected. Additionally the clinician needs to carefully question the true clinical relevance of this preserved bone. One need only think of all of the isolated acetabular component revisions, or polyethylene liner exchanges, that are performed while retaining solidly ingrown femoral components with good preservation of calcar bone years following the index procedure. 2) Resurfacing implants are much more costly than conventional THA implants. In an era of increased cost constraints, parties are willing to pay more only when there is a proven benefit. Resurfacing implants offer no such benefit. 3) There is a well-documented higher revision rate with resurfacing implants over THA. While the previous claim was that this wasn't seen in younger males, that too has been disproven. The latest data from the Australian Joint Replacement Registry demonstrates the 15-year cumulative percentage revision rates for conventional total hip at 9.7% and resurfacing at 13.3%. 4) There is the significant risk of metal ions and local hypersensitivity secondary to the metal-on-metal bearing. Again, this risk is significantly limited with the use of a THA with a polyethylene insert. 5) There is a significant incidence of femoral neck fractures. 6) The overall femoral component loosening rates are higher than for total hip replacements. 7) There is a clear learning curve with resurfacing implants with most series showing increased complications in the first fifty cases, and depending on a surgeons overall clinical practice, it may be quite a challenge to ever really overcome this learning curve issue. 8) There is difficulty restoring offset and leg length discrepancies in certain cases when trying to utilise a resurfacing implant

Objectives . We aimed to determine the effect of surgical approach on the histology of the femoral head following resurfacing of the hip. Methods. We performed a histological assessment of the bone under the femoral component taken from retrieval specimens of patients having revision surgery following resurfacing of the hip. We compared the number of empty lacunae in specimens from patients who had originally had a posterior surgical approach with the number in patients having alternative surgical approaches. Results. We found a statistically significant increase in the percentage of empty lacunae in retrieval specimens from patients who had the posterior approach compared with other surgical approaches (p < 0.001). . Conclusions. This indicates that the vascular compromise that occurs during the posterior surgical approach does have long-term effects on the bone of the femoral head, even if it does not cause overt avascular necrosis. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2013;2:200–5

Background. Partial humeral head resurfacing using a stemless implant is a bone-conserving option in treatment of focal chondral defects. We report our experience using the Arthrosurface HemiCAP® device. Methods. This is a retrospective study of patients with focal chondral defects of the humeral head, treated with partial resurfacing arthroplasty, with a minimum follow-up of 2 years. Mean patient age was 45.4 years (range 27–76). Patients were analyzed in 2 groups: those who underwent HemiCAP for an isolated humeral head defect, and those who had HemiCAP combined with biologic resurfacing of concomitant glenoid disease. Results. 39 patients met inclusion criteria, 5 of whom had concomitant biologic glenoid resurfacing. 24 of 34 shoulders (70.6%) with HemiCAP alone demonstrated functional improvement and decreased pain. Mean forward flexion showed some improvement from 131 degrees pre-operatively to 158 degrees post-operatively (p=0.004). Mean Subjective Shoulder Value improved from 35.0% to 83.6% (p< 0.001). ASES score improved from 29.8 to 77.7(p< 0.001). However, follow-up radiographs showed progression of glenoid disease in 20.6%(7 shoulders). 5 shoulders(14.7%) failed and were revised: 3 to total shoulder arthroplasty, 1 to hemiarthroplasty, and 1 patient underwent glenohumeral fusion. 5 (14.7%) had some pain at latest follow-up but were pursuing a course of conservative management. In the group with associated biologic glenoid resurfacing, all 5 patients had ongoing pain and progression of glenohumeral arthritis requiring revision or glenohumeral fusion. Conclusion. While 70% of patients with an isolated humeral head chondral defect had significant improvement in pain and function after HemiCAP, the outcomes were not superior to those published for complete humeral head resurfacing, or for stemmed prostheses. HemiCAP was not successful for patients with concomitant glenoid disease. Results for these patients were inferior to those published for total shoulder arthroplasty, and ultimately all were revised to a stemmed prosthesis or fused

It's easy to say that hip resurfacing is a failed technology. Journals and lay press are replete with negative reports concerning metal-on-metal bearing failures, destructive pseudotumors, withdrawals and recalls. Reviews of national joint registries show revision risks with hip resurfacing exceeding those of traditional total hip replacement, and metal bearings fare worst among all bearing couples. Yet, that misses the point. Modern hip resurfacing was never meant to replace total hip replacement (THR). It was intended to preserve bone in young patients who would be expected to need multiple revisions due to their youth and high-demand activities. The stated goal of the developers of the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) was to delay THR by 10 years. In the two decades that followed the release of BHR, this goal has been met and exceeded. Much has been learned about indications, patient selection, and surgical technique. We now know that this highly specialised, challenging procedure is best indicated in the young, active male with osteoarthritis, as a complementary, not competitive procedure, to THR. Resurfacing has many advantages. First and foremost, it saves bone, on the day of surgery, and over the next several years by preventing stress shielding. Dislocations are very rare. Leg length discrepancy and changes in offset are avoided. Post-operative activity, including heavy manual labor and contact sports, is unrestricted. More normal loading of the femur and joint stability has allowed professional athletes to regain their careers. Femoral side revisions, if necessary, are simple total hips, and dual mobility constructs allow one to keep the socket. Adverse reactions to metal debris (ARMD), including pseudotumors, have generated great concern. Initially described only in women, it was unclear whether the etiology was allergy, toxicity, or inflammation. A better understanding of the wear properties of the bearing, and its relation to size, anteversion, hip dysplasia and metallurgy, along with retrieval analysis, allow us to conclude that it is excessive wear due to edge loading which is the fundamental mechanism for the vast majority of ARMD. Thus, patient selection, implant selection and surgical technique, the orthopaedic triad, are paramount. What has been most impressive are the truly exceptional results in young, active men. The worst candidates for THR turn out to be the best candidates for resurfacing. The ability to return to full, unrestricted activity is just as important to these patients as the spectacular survivorship in centers specializing in resurfacing. If they are unlucky and face a revision, they are not facing the life-changing outcomes of a long revision femoral stem. So if the best indication for hip resurfacing is the young, active male, let's look at the results of resurfacing these patients in centers with high volumes, using devices with a good track record, such as BHR. Several centers around the world report 10–18 year success rates of BHR in males under 50 at 98–100%. Return to athletics is routinely achieved, and even professional athletes have regained their careers. Hip resurfacing doesn't have to be better than THR to be popular among patients. Just the idea of saving all that bone makes it attractive. In the young active male, however, the results exceed those of THR, while leaving better revision options for the future. This justifies its continued use in this challenging patient population

Introduction. Reported advantages of unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) over total knee replacement (TKR) include better kinematics and less postoperative pain. The reported longevity of UKRs, regardless of design, still does not compare as favourably as that of TKR. Resurfacing-type UKR differ to other UKR in that they result in minimal bone resection. Objectives. The aim of this study was to review our experience with conversion of a resurfacing UKR prosthesis to a TKR. We sought to determine the causes of failure and compare outcomes in terms of functional scores, range of motion and radiographic measures. We also determined the use of graft and prosthetic revision supplements as well as stemmed implants. Methods. We retrospectively reviewed the records of 55 patients (Group A), all consecutive, who underwent TKR for a failed UKR from 2003–2008. We chose a cohort of 55 patients (Group B) who had undergone a primary TKR from the same surgeon's database that most closely resembled the study cohort in terms of sex, age and BMI. Results. The most common mode of failure was base-plate subsidence and progression of disease to other compartments. 55% of patients did not have isolated disease at the time of the initial surgery. Interestingly, 42% who had revision due to progression of disease had mult-icompartmental disease at initial UKR but 19 of 24 patients (79%) who had multi-compartmental disease were revised for other reasons other than progression of disease. 3 (5%) of patients required either tibial and/or femoral augments and/or stems. Conclusions. Only 5% required complex revision surgery. Thus, a large proportion of conversions of resurfacing UKR to TKR require non-complex surgery with patients having no significant differences in their radiographic measures nor in their clinical measures to those of primary knee replacements

Introduction: Advanced stages of first metatarsophalangeal (MTP) arthritis have traditionally been treated with resection arthroplasty or arthrodesis. Total- and hemiarthroplasty using various prosthetic replacements of the MTP joint, or phalangeal base, have been reported with variable success. A new metatarsal resurfacing system allows for intraoperative joint geometry mapping and placement of a contoured prosthetic. Methods: Twenty-five patients with advanced stage hallux rigidus were included in this investigation and have undergone metatarsal head resurfacing (HemiCAP® Prosthesis, Arthrosurface Inc., Franklin, MA). The average age of the patients was 51 years. All patients were assessed with the Short Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36) and the American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) clinical rating system for the Hallux, physical examination and radiographic evaluation. The average follow up was 20 months (range: 8 to 28 months). Results: Postoperative passive dorsiflexion increased on average by 31 degrees from 34 degrees at baseline to 65 degrees at last follow-up. The mean AOFAS score improved from 44.1 to 82.1. The average SF-36 score improved from 81.2 to 96.1. The preoperative visual analogue pain score was reduced from 6.8 to 1.4 at last follow-up. No radiographic evidence of implant loosening, subsidence, or periprosthetic radiolucency has been found to date. No device failures have been encountered. All patients stated they would undergo the procedure again. One patient had a superficial wound break down which resolved with conservative care. Conclusion: Although long term follow up is still necessary, the current results are very promising providing effective pain relief and improvement in range of motion. Proper implant placement does not affect the sesamoid groove. The procedure is performed with minimal joint resection and preserves viable bone stock, therefore conversion to arthrodesis or resection arthroplasty is possible should the need for further treatment arise

Introduction. Following in-depth analysis of the market leading brand combinations in which we identified implant influences on risk of revision, we compared revision in patients implanted with different categories of hip replacement in order to find implant with the lowest revision risk, once known flawed options were removed. Methods. All patients with osteoarthritis who underwent a hip replacement (2003–2010) using an Exeter-Contemporary (cemented), Corail-Pinnacle (cementless), Exeter-Trident (Hybrid) or a Birmingham Hip resurfacing (BHR) were initially included within the analysis. Operations involving factors that were significant predictors of revision were excluded. Cox proportional hazard models were then used to assess the relative risk of revision for a category of implant (compared with cemented), after adjustment for patient covariates. Results. In males, overall 5-year revision was 1.4%. Implant category did not significantly influence revision risk (p=0.615) in < 60 after adjustment. In the 60–75 year group, resurfacing implants were a significant influence for revision (Hazard ratio (HR)=2.63, p< 0.001), and with a trend in cementless (HR=1.63, p=0.057). In males >75 years, cementless implants significantly influenced revision risk (HR=3.48, p=0.002). In females, overall 5-year revision was 1.0%. After adjustment, in < 60 group implant category did not significantly influence revision (p=0.199), although there was a trend towards higher revision in resurfacing implants (HR=3.53, p=0.065). In over 60 year olds, cementless implants were a significant influence for revision risk (60–75 years: HR=1.80, p=0.010, >75 years: HR=2.26, p=0.010. In the older group, there was also a trend towards higher revision with hybrid implants (HR=3.25, p=0.053). Discussion. In summary, after implant optimisation of the market leaders and patient risk adjustment we found that cementless implants had a higher revision compared with cemented in males over 75 and females over 60 years old. In males under 60 years, there were no significant differences in revision risk between implant types

Introduction: Shoulder surface replacement arthroplasty has been established for several decades as a mean to restore comfort and function of the shoulder for many afflictions that derange the normal anatomy. The surface replacement may offer some advantages over the stemmed prostheses.

Purpose: The purpose of the study was to evaluate the clinical and radiological results of Copeland cementless surface replacement arthroplasty (CSRA) applied in patients with a degenerative arthritis.

Patients and Methods: The study was conducted on 76 patients with degenerative joint disease of the shoulder that were operated on between 1999 and 2006. The patients were prospectively followed up clinically and radiologically for a mean of 26.2 months (range, 9–80 months). There were 41 female and 35 male shoulders. The mean age was 64.4 years (range, 54–86). The mean operative time was 42 minutes (range, 27–62 minutes). The clinical assessment was performed with the Constant score Results: The constant score significantly improved from a mean of 16.32 points preoperatively to 68.72 points postoperatively. The average pain score increased from 0.2 points to 10.2 points. The average ROM score increased from 9.22 points to 24.73 points. The humeral offset increased from 24.2mm to 29.2mm.

Conclusion: The shoulder surface replacement arthroplasty shows good mid-term results in patients with degenerative shoulder disease.

Management of hip osteoarthritis in young active patients is made more challenging by the longevity required of the prostheses used and the level of activity they must endure. The aim of this study was to compare the functional outcomes and activity levels following hip resurfacing (HR) and uncemented total hip arthroplasty (UTHA) in young active patients matched for age, gender and activity levels.

255 consecutive hip arthroplasties performed in a teaching hospital were retrospectively reviewed from which were identified 58 UTHA patients and 58 HR patients, matched for age, gender and pre-operative activity level. Mean age of patients within UTHA was 58.5 years (34 – 65) and in HR was 57.9 years (43 – 68).

No patients within the study were lost to follow-up. Mean follow-up was five years.

Within each group there was a statistically significant improvement in the mean UCLA score following surgery (p=0.00). In the HR Group, mean UCLA score improved from 4.2 (1–8) to 6.7 (3–10) while in the UTHA group the mean UCLA score improved from 3.4 (1–7) to 5.8 (3–10). Mean OHS improved from 44.4 (31–57) to 16.6 (12–31) in the HR group and from 46.1 (16–60) to 18.8 (12–45) in the UTHA group, p = 0.00 each group.

This study found no statistically significant difference in the levels of function (p= 0.82) or activity pursued (p= 0.60) after surgery between UTHA and HR in a population of patients matched for age, gender and pre-operative activity levels.

This study has shown comparable outcomes with hip resurfacing and uncemented THA in terms of both functional outcomes and activity levels in a group of young active patients. The potential complications unique to hip resurfacing may be avoided by the use of uncemented THA. In addition, uncemented THA has a longer track record.

The management of osteoarthritis of the hip in young active patients has always been challenging. This can be made more difficult because of the longevity required of the prostheses used and the level of activity they must endure.

The aim of this study was to compare the functional outcomes and activity levels following hip resurfacing and uncemented THA in young active patients matched for age, gender and activity levels.

A retrospective review of 255 consecutive hip arthroplasties performed in a teaching hospital was carried out. From this series we identified 58 patients who had undergone uncemented THA (Group A) and 58 patients who underwent hip resurfacing (Group B), matched for age, gender and pre-operative activity level.

The mean age of patients within Group A was 58.5 years (34–65) and in Group B was 57.9 years (43–68). Mean pre-operative University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) score in Group A was 3.4 (1–7) and in Group B was 4.2 (1–8). The mean pre-operative Oxford Hip Score (OHS) was 46.1 (16–60) and 44.4 (31–57) in Groups A and B respectively.

Mean follow-up period was five years (4–7 years). In the hip resurfacing group, the mean UCLA score improved from 4.2 (1–8) to 6.7 (3–10), while in the uncemented THA group this improved from 3.4 (1–7) to 5.8 (3–10). Similarly, the mean OHS improved from 44.4 (31–57) to 16.6 (12–31) in the hip resurfacing group and from 46.1 (16–60) to 18.8 (12–45) in the uncemented THA group.

This study found no statistically significant difference in the levels of function (p= 0.82) or activity pursued (p= 0.60) after surgery between uncemented THA and hip resurfacing in a population of patients matched for age, gender and pre-operative activity levels.

Although there was statistically significant improvement in UCLA and OHS within each group, it was found that no group was better than the other.

This study has shown comparable outcomes with hip resurfacing and uncemented THA in terms of both functional outcomes and activity levels in a group of young active patients. The potential complications unique to hip resurfacing may be avoided by the use of uncemented THA. In addition, uncemented THA has a longer track record.

Strategy regarding patella resurfacing in total knee replacement (TKR) remains controversial. TKR revision rates are reportedly influenced by surgeon procedure volume. The study aim was to compare revision outcomes of TKR with and without patella resurfacing in different surgeon volume groups using data from the AOANJRR. The study population included 571,149 primary TKRs for osteoarthritis. Surgeons were classified as low, medium, or high-volume based on the quartiles of mean primary TKR volume between 2011 and 2020. Cumulative percent revision (CPR) using Kaplan-Meier estimates of survivorship were calculated for the three surgeon volume groups with and without patella resurfacing. Cox proportional hazards models, adjusted for age and sex, were used to compare revision risks. High-volume surgeons who did not resurface the patella had the highest all-cause CPR (20-year CPR 10.9%, 95% CI [10.0%, 12.0%]). When the patella was resurfaced, high-volume surgeons had the lowest revision rate (7.3%, 95% CI [6.4%, 8.4%]). When the high-volume groups were compared there was a higher rate of revision for the non-resurfaced group after 6 months. When the medium-volume surgeon groups were compared, not resurfacing the patella also was associated with a higher rate of revision after 3 months. The low-volume comparisons showed an initial higher rate of revision with patella resurfacing, but there was no difference after 3 months. When only patella revisions were considered, there were higher rates of revision in all three volume groups where the patella was not resurfaced. TKR performed by high and medium-volume surgeons without patella resurfacing had higher revision rates compared to when the patella was resurfaced. Resurfacing the patella in the primary procedure protected against revision for patella reasons in all surgeon volume groups. Level of evidence: III (National registry analysis)

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

Aims. In metal-on-metal (MoM) hip arthroplasties and resurfacings, mechanically induced corrosion can lead to elevated serum metal ions, a local inflammatory response, and formation of pseudotumours, ultimately requiring revision. The size and diametral clearance of anatomical (ADM) and modular (MDM) dual-mobility polyethylene bearings match those of Birmingham hip MoM components. If the acetabular component is satisfactorily positioned, well integrated into the bone, and has no surface damage, this presents the opportunity for revision with exchange of the metal head for ADM/MDM polyethylene bearings without removal of the acetabular component. Methods. Between 2012 and 2020, across two centres, 94 patients underwent revision of Birmingham MoM hip arthroplasties or resurfacings. Mean age was 65.5 years (33 to 87). In 53 patients (56.4%), the acetabular component was retained and dual-mobility bearings were used (DM); in 41 (43.6%) the acetabulum was revised (AR). Patients underwent follow-up of minimum two-years (mean 4.6 (2.1 to 8.5) years). Results. In the DM group, two (3.8%) patients underwent further surgery: one (1.9%) for dislocation and one (1.9%) for infection. In the AR group, four (9.8%) underwent further procedures: two (4.9%) for loosening of the acetabular component and two (4.9%) following dislocations. There were no other dislocations in either group. In the DM group, operating time (68.4 vs 101.5 mins, p < 0.001), postoperative drop in haemoglobin (16.6 vs 27.8 g/L, p < 0.001), and length of stay (1.8 vs 2.4 days, p < 0.001) were significantly lower. There was a significant reduction in serum metal ions postoperatively in both groups (p < 0.001), although there was no difference between groups for this reduction (p = 0.674 (cobalt); p = 0.186 (chromium)). Conclusion. In selected patients with Birmingham MoM hips, where the acetabular component is well-fixed and in a satisfactory position with no surface damage, the metal head can be exchanged for polyethylene ADM/MDM bearings with retention of the acetabular prosthesis. This presents significant benefits, with a shorter procedure and a lower risk of complications. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(6):514–523

Abstract. Introduction. Active, middle-aged patients with symptomatic cartilage or osteochondral defects can find themselves in a treatment gap when they have failed conservative measures but are not yet eligible for conventional arthroplasty. Data from various cohort studies suggests that focal knee resurfacing implants such as HemiCAP, UniCAP, Episealer or BioBoly are cost-effective solutions to alleviate pain, improve function and delay or eliminate the need for conventional replacement. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted in order to(i) evaluate revision rates and implant survival of focal resurfacing; (ii) explore surgical complications; and (iii) evaluate various patient reported clinical outcome measures. Methodology. PubMED, Cochrane Library and Medline databases were searched in February 2022 for prospective and retrospective cohort studies evaluating any of the available implant types. Data on incidence of revision, complications and various patient reported outcome measures was sourced. Results. A total of 24 unique studies were identified with a total of 1465 enrolled patients. A revision rate of 12.97% over a 5.9 year weighted mean follow-up period was observed across all implant types. However, in one series a Kaplan-Meir survival as high as 92.6% at a 10-year follow-up period was noted. A statistically significant improvement was documented across multiple subjective clinical outcomes scores. There was a low reported incidence of post-operative complications such as aseptic loosening or deep wound infection. Conclusions. Focal femoral resurfacing appears to be a viable treatment option for focal symptomatic chondral lesions in patients beyond biological reconstruction, with low revision rates and high patient satisfaction

Aims. Focal knee arthroplasty is an attractive alternative to knee arthroplasty for young patients because it allows preservation of a large amount of bone for potential revisions. However, the mechanical behaviour of cartilage has not yet been investigated because it is challenging to evaluate in vivo contact areas, pressure, and deformations from metal implants. Therefore, this study aimed to determine the contact pressure in the tibiofemoral joint with a focal knee arthroplasty using a finite element model. Methods. The mechanical behaviour of the cartilage surrounding a metal implant was evaluated using finite element analysis. We modelled focal knee arthroplasty with placement flush, 0.5 mm deep, or protruding 0.5 mm with regard to the level of the surrounding cartilage. We compared contact stress and pressure for bone, implant, and cartilage under static loading conditions. Results. Contact stress on medial and lateral femoral and tibial cartilages increased and decreased, respectively, the most and the least in the protruding model compared to the intact model. The deep model exhibited the closest tibiofemoral contact stress to the intact model. In addition, the deep model demonstrated load sharing between the bone and the implant, while the protruding and flush model showed stress shielding. The data revealed that resurfacing with a focal knee arthroplasty does not cause increased contact pressure with deep implantation. However, protruding implantation leads to increased contact pressure, decreased bone stress, and biomechanical disadvantage in an in vivo application. Conclusion. These results show that it is preferable to leave an edge slightly deep rather than flush and protruding. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2023;12(8):497–503

Joint registries suggest a downward trend in the use of uncemented Total Knee Replacements (TKR) since 2003, largely related to reports of early failures of uncemented tibial and patella components. Advancements in uncemented design such as trabecular metal may improve outcomes, but there is a scarcity of high-quality data from randomised trials. 319 patients <75 years of age were randomised to either cemented or uncemented TKR implanted using computer navigation. Patellae were resurfaced in all patients. Patient outcome scores, re-operations and radiographic analysis of radiolucent lines were compared. Two year follow up was available for 287 patients (144 cemented vs 143 uncemented). There was no difference in operative time between groups, 73.7 v 71.1 mins (p= 0.08). There were no statistical differences in outcome scores at 2 years, Oxford knee score 42.5 vs 41.8 (p=0.35), International Knee Society 84.6 vs 84.0 (p=0.76), Forgotten Joint Score 66.7 vs 66.4 (p=0.91). There were two revisions, both for infection one in each group (0.33%). 13 cemented and 8 uncemented knees underwent re-operation, the majority of these being manipulation under anaesthetic (85.7%), with no difference (8.3% vs 5.3%, 95% CI -2.81% to 8.89%, p = 0.31). No difference was found in radiographic analysis at 2 years, 1 lucent line was seen in the cemented group and 3 in the uncemented group (0.67% v 2.09%, 95%CI -4.1% to 1.24%, p = 0.29). We found no difference in clinical or radiographic outcomes between cemented and uncemented TKR including routine patella resurfacing at two years. Early results suggest there is no difference between cemented and uncemented TKR at 2 years with reference to survivorship, patient outcomes and radiological parameters