Aims. The aim of this study was to describe the pattern of revision indications for unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and any change to this pattern for UKA patients over the last 20 years, and to investigate potential associations to changes in surgical practice over time. Methods. All primary knee arthroplasty surgeries performed due to primary osteoarthritis and their revisions reported to the Danish Knee Arthroplasty Register from 1997 to 2017 were included. Complex surgeries were excluded. The data was linked to the National Patient Register and the Civil Registration System for comorbidity, mortality, and emigration status. TKAs were propensity score matched 4:1 to UKAs. Revision risks were compared using competing risk Cox proportional hazard regression with a shared γ frailty component. Results. Aseptic loosening (loosening) was the most common revision indication for both UKA (26.7%) and TKA (29.5%). Pain and disease progression accounted for 54.6% of the remaining UKA revisions. Infections and instability accounted for 56.1% of the remaining TKA revision. The incidence of revision due to loosening or pain decreased over the last decade, being the second and third least common indications in 2017. There was a decrease associated with fixation method for pain (hazard ratio (HR) 0.40; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 0.94) and loosening (HR 0.29; 95% CI 0.10 to 0.81) for cementless compared to cemented, and units UKA usage for pain (HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.91), and loosening (HR 0.51; 95% CI 0.37 to 0.70) for high usage. Conclusion. The overall revision patterns for UKA and TKA for the last 20 years are comparable to previous published patterns. We found large changes to UKA revision patterns in the last decade, and with the current surgical practice, revision due to pain or loosening are significantly less likely. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(12):923–931

Aims

Medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is undertaken in patients with a passively correctable varus deformity. Our hypothesis was that restoration of natural soft tissue tension would result in a comparable lower limb alignment with the contralateral normal lower limb after mobile-bearing medial UKA.

Aims. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is the preferred treatment for anterior medial knee osteoarthritis (OA) owing to the rapid postoperative recovery. However, the risk factors for UKA failure remain controversial. Methods. The clinical data of Oxford mobile-bearing UKAs performed between 2011 and 2017 with a minimum follow-up of five years were retrospectively analyzed. Demographic, surgical, and follow-up data were collected. The Cox proportional hazards model was used to identify the risk factors that contribute to UKA failure. Kaplan-Meier survival was used to compare the effect of the prosthesis position on UKA survival. Results. A total of 407 patients who underwent UKA were included in the study. The mean age of patients was 61.8 years, and the mean follow-up period of the patients was 91.7 months. The mean Knee Society Score (KSS) preoperatively and at the last follow-up were 64.2 and 89.7, respectively (p = 0.001). Overall, 28 patients (6.9%) with UKA underwent revision due to prosthesis loosening (16 patients), dislocation (eight patients), and persistent pain (four patients). Cox proportional hazards model analysis identified malposition of the prostheses as a high-risk factor for UKA failure (p = 0.007). Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed that the five-year survival rate of the group with malposition was 85.1%, which was significantly lower than that of the group with normal position (96.2%; p < 0.001). Conclusion. UKA constitutes an effective method for treating anteromedial knee OA, with an excellent five-year survival rate. Aseptic loosening caused by prosthesis malposition was identified as the main cause of UKA failure. Surgeons should pay close attention to prevent the potential occurrence of this problem. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(12):914–922

Introduction. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) currently experiences increased popularity. It is usually assumed that UKA shows kinematic features closer to the natural knee than total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Especially in younger patients more natural knee function and faster recovery have helped to increase the popularity of UKA. Another leading reason for the popularity of UKA is the ability to preserve the remaining healthy tissues in the knee, which is not always possible in TKA. Many biomechanical questions remain, however, with respect to this type of replacement. 25% of knees with medial compartment osteoarthritis also have a deficient anterior cruciate ligament [1]. In current clinical practice, medial UKA would be contraindicated in these patients. Our hypothesis is that kinematics after UKA in combination with ACL reconstruction should allow to restore joint function close to the native knee joint. This is clinically relevant, because functional benefits for medial UKA should especially be attractive to the young and active patient. Materials and Methods. Six fresh frozen full leg cadaver specimens were prepared to be mounted in a kinematic rig (Figure 1) with six degrees of freedom for the knee joint. Three motion patterns were applied: passive flexion-extension, open chain extension, and squatting. These motion patterns were performed in four situations for each specimen: with the native knee; after implantation of a medial UKA (Figure 2); next after cutting the ACL and finally after reconstruction of the ACL. During the loaded motions, quadriceps and hamstrings muscle forces were applied. Infrared cameras continuously recorded the trajectories of marker frames rigidly attached to femur, tibia and patella. Prior computer tomography allowed identification of coordinate frames of the bones and calculations of anatomical rotations and translations. Strains in the collateral ligaments were calculated from insertion site distances. Results. Knee kinematics and collateral ligament strains were quite close to the native situation after both UKA and ACL reconstruction for all motor tasks. Nevertheless, some statistically significant differences were detected, which may be relevant clinically and biomechanically. In general, insertion of a UKA led to a knee joint which was somewhat less adducted (Figure 3), with a medial femoral condyle located slightly higher, confirming previously published findings [2]. These effects were slightly reduced both after cutting as well as after reconstructing the ACL. The joint became somewhat less stable in the AP direction after insertion of a UKA and this instability persisted not only after cutting but even after reconstructing the ACL

Aims. This systematic review aims to compare the precision of component positioning, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), complications, survivorship, cost-effectiveness, and learning curves of MAKO robotic arm-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (RAUKA) with manual medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (mUKA). Methods. Searches of PubMed, MEDLINE, and Google Scholar were performed in November 2021 according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-­Analysis statement. Search terms included “robotic”, “unicompartmental”, “knee”, and “arthroplasty”. Published clinical research articles reporting the learning curves and cost-effectiveness of MAKO RAUKA, and those comparing the component precision, functional outcomes, survivorship, or complications with mUKA, were included for analysis. Results. A total of 179 articles were identified from initial screening, of which 14 articles satisfied the inclusion criteria and were included for analysis. The papers analyzed include one on learning curve, five on implant positioning, six on functional outcomes, five on complications, six on survivorship, and three on cost. The learning curve was six cases for operating time and zero for precision. There was consistent evidence of more precise implant positioning with MAKO RAUKA. Meta-analysis demonstrated lower overall complication rates associated with MAKO RAUKA (OR 2.18 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.06 to 4.49); p = 0.040) but no difference in re-intervention, infection, Knee Society Score (KSS; mean difference 1.64 (95% CI -3.00 to 6.27); p = 0.490), or Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) score (mean difference -0.58 (95% CI -3.55 to 2.38); p = 0.700). MAKO RAUKA was shown to be a cost-effective procedure, but this was directly related to volume. Conclusion. MAKO RAUKA was associated with improved precision of component positioning but was not associated with improved PROMs using the KSS and WOMAC scores. Future longer-term studies should report functional outcomes, potentially using scores with minimal ceiling effects and survival to assess whether the improved precision of MAKO RAUKA results in better outcomes. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(5):541–548

Aims. The aim of this study was to conduct a cross-sectional, observational cohort study of patients presenting for revision of a total hip, or total or unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, to understand current routes to revision surgery and explore differences in symptoms, healthcare use, reason for revision, and the revision surgery (surgical time, components, length of stay) between patients having regular follow-up and those without. Methods. Data were collected from participants and medical records for the 12 months prior to revision. Patients with previous revision, metal-on-metal articulations, or hip hemiarthroplasty were excluded. Participants were retrospectively classified as ‘Planned’ or ‘Unplanned’ revision. Multilevel regression and propensity score matching were used to compare the two groups. Results. Data were analyzed from 568 patients, recruited in 38 UK secondary care sites between October 2017 and October 2018 (43.5% male; mean (SD) age 71.86 years (9.93); 305 hips, 263 knees). No significant inclusion differences were identified between the two groups. For hip revision, time to revision > ten years (odds ratio (OR) 3.804, 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.353 to 10.694), p = 0.011), periprosthetic fracture (OR 20.309, 95% CI (4.574 to 90.179), p < 0.001), and dislocation (OR 12.953, 95% CI (4.014 to 41.794), p < 0.001), were associated with unplanned revision. For knee, there were no associations with route to revision. Revision after ten years was more likely for those who were younger at primary surgery, regardless of route to revision. No significant differences in cost outcomes, length of surgery time, and access to a health professional in the year prior to revision were found between the two groups. When periprosthetic fractures, dislocations, and infections were excluded, healthcare use was significantly higher in the unplanned revision group. Conclusion. Differences between characteristics for patients presenting for planned and unplanned revision are minimal. Although there was greater healthcare use in those having unplanned revision, it appears unlikely that routine orthopaedic review would have detected many of these issues. It may be safe to disinvest in standard follow-up provided there is rapid access to orthopaedic review. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(1):59–67

Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is associated with a higher risk of revision compared with total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The outcomes of knee arthroplasty are typically presented as implant survival or incidence of revision after a set number of years, which can be difficult for patients and clinicians to conceptualise. We aimed to calculate the ‘lifetime risk’ of revision for UKA as a more relatable estimate of risk projection over a patient's remaining lifetime, and make comparisons to TKA. All primary UKAS performed from 1999 to 2019 (n=13,481) captured by the New Zealand Joint Registry (NZJR) were included. The lifetime risk of revision was calculated and stratified by age, gender and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) status. The lifetime risk of revision for UKA was highest in the youngest patients (46-50 years; 40.4%) and lowest in the oldest patients (86-90 years; 3.7%). Lifetime risk of revision was higher for females (range 4.3%-43.4% cf. males 2.9%-37.4%) and patients with higher ASA status (ASA 3-4 range 8.8%-41.2% cf. ASA 1 1.8%-29.8%), regardless of age. The lifetime risk of UKA was two-fold higher than TKA (ranging from 3.7%-40.4% UKA, 1.6%-22.4% TKA) across all age groups. Increased risk of revision in the younger patients was associated with aseptic loosening in both males and females, and pain in females. Periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) accounted for 4% of all UKA revisions, in contrast to 27% for TKA; risk of PJI was higher for males than females for both procedures. The lifetime risk of revision is a more meaningful measure of arthroplasty outcomes and can aid with patient counselling prior to UKA. Findings from this study show the increased lifetime risk of UKA revision for younger patients, females and those with higher ASA status

Introduction. A key outcome measured by national joint registries are revision events. This informs best practice and identifies poor-performing surgical devices. Although registry data often record reasons for revision arthroplasty, interpretation is limited by lack of standardised definitions of revision reasons and objective assessment of radiologic and laboratory parameters. Our study aim was to compare reasons for unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) revision reported to the New Zealand Joint Registry (NZJR) with reasons identified by independent clinical review. Methods. A total of 2,272 patients undergoing primary medial and lateral UKA at four large tertiary hospitals between 2000 and 2017 were included. A total of 158 patients underwent subsequent revision with mean follow-up of 8 years. A systematic review of clinical findings, radiographs and operative data was performed to identify revision cases and to determine the reasons for revision using a standardised protocol. These were compared to reasons reported to the NZJR using Chi-squared and Fisher exact tests. Results. Osteoarthritis progression was the most common reason for revision on systematic clinical review (30%), however this was underreported to the registry (4%, p<0.001). A larger proportion of revisions reported to the registry were for ‘unexplained pain’ (30% of cases vs. 4% on clinical review, p<0.001). A reason for revision was not reported to the registry for 24 (15%) of cases. Discussion and Conclusion. We found significant inaccuracies in registry-reported reasons for revision following UKA. These included over-reporting of ‘unexplained pain’, under-reporting of osteoarthritis progression, and failure to identify a reason for revision. Efforts to improve registry capture of revision reasons for UKA should focus on increasing accuracy in these three areas. This could be addressed through standardised recording methods and tailored revision reason options for UKA for surgeons to select when recording the reasons

Introduction. This study assessed outcomes of total knee joint replacements (TKJR) in patients who had undergone previous periarticular osteotomy compared with unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR). Establishing a difference in the results of total knee joint replacements following these operations may be an important consideration in the decision-making and patient counselling around osteotomy versus UKR for the management of single-compartment osteoarthritis. Method. Using data from the New Zealand Joint Registry, we identified 1,895 total knee joint replacements with prior osteotomy and 1,391 with prior UKR. Revision rates and patient-reported outcomes, as measured by the Oxford Knee Score (OKS), between these two groups were compared. Adjusted hazard ratios were also calculated to compare the groups. Results. The revision rate for total knee joint replacement following osteotomy was significantly lower than TKJR following UKR (0.88 per 100 component years versus 1.38 per 100 component years, respectively). Adjusted hazard ratio calculations found that those with TKJR with prior UKR had more than double the risk of requiring revision than those with prior osteotomy. Additionally, there was a statistically significant difference in the mean adjusted OKS scores between the two groups, with improved outcomes in the group with prior osteotomy. Conclusion. Our findings suggest that total knee joint replacement following periarticular osteotomy have a lower risk of revision and improved OKS when compared to those with prior UKR. Previous studies assessing New Zealand Joint Registry have not found a statistically significant difference between the two groups however, these results are no longer in keeping with more contemporary literature. Our study confirms the New Zealand population to be comparable with international studies with TKJR after osteotomy performing significantly better compared with prior UKR

Abstract. Purpose. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is an effective treatment for late knee osteoarthritis (OA). However, its indications remain controversial. Young age (< 60 years) has been associated with worse outcomes. The goal of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to study the effect of age on UKA outcomes. Methods. The primary objective was to compare the UKA revision rate in young patients with that of old patients, using the age thresholds of 60 and 55 years. Secondary objectives were patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and implant design. PubMed, Ovid, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and Cochrane library were searched in June 2021. This review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021248322). Results. A total of 12 observational studies with 6,448 knees were included. A mean MINORS score of 19 was assigned to the review. The mean age of patients was 64.32 years, with follow-up ranging from 0.2 to 15 years. There was no significant difference in revision rate, incident or PROMs between young and old patients in the analysis for each age threshold. Further sub-analysis adjusting for implant type in mobile- and fixed-bearing prostheses also showed similar results between those above and under 60 and 55 years. Conclusion. Young age was not associated with a higher revision rate or lower functional scores. Thus, this review provides evidence that performing UKA at a younger age (< 60 years) should not be considered suboptimal. However, this finding should be applied in context, as other confounding factors need to be explored

Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) and high tibial osteotomy (HTO) are well-established operative interventions in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis (KOA). However, which of these interventions is more beneficial, to patients with KOA, is not known and remains a topic of much debate. Aims: (i) To determine whether UKA or HTO is more beneficial in the treatment of isolated medial compartment KOA, via an assessment of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). (ii) To investigate the relationship between PROMs and radiographic parameters of knee joint orientation/alignment. This longitudinal observational study assessed a total of 42 patients that had undergone UKA (n=23) or HTO (n=19) to treat isolated medial compartment KOA. The PROMs assessed, pre-operatively and 1-year post-operatively, consisted of the: self-administered comorbidity questionnaire; short form-12; oxford knee score; knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score; and the EQ-5D-5L. The radiographic parameters of knee joint alignment/orientation assessed, pre-operatively and 8-weeks post-operatively, included the: hip-knee-ankle angle; mechanical axis deviation; and the angle of the Mikulicz line. Statistical analysis demonstrated an overall significant (p<0.001), pre-operative to post-operative, improvement in the PROM scores of both groups. There were no significant differences in the post-operative PROM scores of the UKA and HTO group. Correlation analyses revealed that pre-operatively, a more distolaterally angled Mikulicz line was associated with worse knee function (p<0.05) and overall health (p<0.05); a relationship that, until now, has not been investigated nor commented upon within the literature. UKAs and HTOs are both efficacious operations that provide a comparable degree of clinical benefit to patients with isolated medial compartment KOA. To further the scientific/medical community's understanding of the factors that impact upon health-outcomes in KOA, future research should seek to investigate the mechanism underlying the relationship, between Mikulicz line and PROMs, observed within the current study

Purpose. We may consider total knee arthroplasty on one knee and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty on another knee when the patient has different grade osteoarthritis on one knee and opposite knee. Both total knee and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty had been reported as excellent clinical results, but there can be different results and different preference if the same patient undergo operation of simulataneous total knee and unicompartmental knee. We performed total and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty and pretend to report results of the clinical and radiological results and rationale of the operation. Materials and Methods. From Marth 2007 to February 2014, 23 patients, 46 knees that underwent total knee arthroplasty and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty on knees with different osteoarthritis grade in same person enrolled in this study(Fig. 1). The mean age was 64.4 years old(range:55–75) and mean follow-up period was 25.1 months(range:13–72). Results. The tibiofemoral angle changed from 4.0 of varus to 5.4 of valgus in the total knee arthroplasty, and from 0.5 of valgus to 3.8 of valgus in the unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. The mechanical axis deviation changed from varus 28.35mm to varus 3.68mm in the total knee arthroplasty, and from 16.42 to 8.81 in the unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. The average Hospital for Special Surgery Knee-Rating Scale(HSS) improved from 55.1 preoperatively to 93.4 at last follow-up in the total knee arthroplasty, and from 65.2 to 95.2 in the unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. The average WOMAC Score improved from 61.6 preoperatively to 18.0 at last follow-up in the total knee arthroplasty, and from 55.4 to 16.2 in the unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. For patient preference, 5 patients(22%) preferred the unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, and 6 patients(26%) preferred the total knee arthroplasty, and 12 patients felt no difference between two knees. 20 patients(87%) reported being ‘very satisfied’ or ‘satisfied’ in the total knee arthroplasty, and 18 patients(79%) reported in the unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. We underwent 1 case complication of tibial implant loosening and varus malalignment. So, we converted total knee arthroplasty about 3 months later(Fig. 2). Conclusions. Total knee arthroplasty and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in same person showed satisfactory clinical and radiological results. There was no difference in preference site and postoperative range of motion showed more regainment on unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. More complications were demonstrated in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Total and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in same person seems to be a good option when the both knee have different osteoarthritis grade

Source of the study: University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand and University of Otago, Christchurch, New Zealand. Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) are predictors of knee arthroplasty revision. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is effective for patients with the correct indications, however has higher revision rates than total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Different revision thresholds for the procedures have been postulated. Our aims were to investigate: 1) if PROMs could predict knee arthroplasty revision within two years of the score at six months, five years and ten years follow-up, and 2) if revision ‘thresholds’ differed between TKA and UKA. All TKAs and UKAs captured by the New Zealand Joint Registry between 1999 and 2019 with at least one OKS response at six months (TKA n=27,708, UKA n=8,415), five years (TKA n=11,519, UKA n=3,365) or ten years (TKA n=6,311, UKA n=1,744) were included. were propensity-score matched 2:1 with UKAs for comparison of revision thresholds. Logistic regression indicated that for every one-unit decrease in OKS, the odds of TKA and UKA revision decreased by 10% and 11% at six months, 10% and 12% at five years and 9% and 5% at ten years. Fewer TKA patients with ‘poor’ outcomes (≤25) subsequently underwent revision compared with UKA at six months (5.1% vs. 19.6%, p<0.001), five years (4.3% vs. 12.5%, p<0.001) and ten years (6.4%vs. 15.0%, p=0.02). Compared with TKA, UKA patients were 2.5 times more likely to undergo revision for ‘unknown’ reasons, bearing dislocations and disease progression. The OKS is a strong predictor of subsequent knee arthroplasty revision within two years of the score from early to late term. A lower revision threshold was found with UKA when compared with a matched TKA cohort. Higher revision rates of UKA are associated with both lower clinical thresholds for revision and additional modes of UKA failure

Objectives. Elevated proximal tibial bone strain may cause unexplained pain, an important cause of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) revision. This study investigates the effect of tibial component alignment in metal-backed (MB) and all-polyethylene (AP) fixed-bearing medial UKAs on bone strain, using an experimentally validated finite element model (FEM). Methods. A previously experimentally validated FEM of a composite tibia implanted with a cemented fixed-bearing UKA (MB and AP) was used. Standard alignment (medial proximal tibial angle 90°, 6° posterior slope), coronal malalignment (3°, 5°, 10° varus; 3°, 5° valgus), and sagittal malalignment (0°, 3°, 6°, 9°, 12°) were analyzed. The primary outcome measure was the volume of compressively overstrained cancellous bone (VOCB) < -3000 µε. The secondary outcome measure was maximum von Mises stress in cortical bone (MSCB) over a medial region of interest. Results. Varus malalignment decreased VOCB but increased MSCB in both implants, more so in the AP implant. Varus malalignment of 10° reduced the VOCB by 10% and 3% in AP and MB implants but increased the MSCB by 14% and 13%, respectively. Valgus malalignment of 5° increased the VOCB by 8% and 4% in AP and MB implants, with reductions in MSCB of 7% and 10%, respectively. Sagittal malalignment displayed negligible effects. Well-aligned AP implants displayed greater VOCB than malaligned MB implants. Conclusion. All-polyethylene implants are more sensitive to coronal plane malalignments than MB implants are; varus malalignment reduced cancellous bone strain but increased anteromedial cortical bone stress. Sagittal plane malalignment has a negligible effect on bone strain. Cite this article: I. Danese, P. Pankaj, C. E. H. Scott. The effect of malalignment on proximal tibial strain in fixed-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: A comparison between metal-backed and all-polyethylene components using a validated finite element model. Bone Joint Res 2019;8:55–64. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.82.BJR-2018-0186.R2

Objectives. This study reports on a secondary exploratory analysis of the early clinical outcomes of a randomised clinical trial comparing robotic arm-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) for medial compartment osteoarthritis of the knee with manual UKA performed using traditional surgical jigs. This follows reporting of the primary outcomes of implant accuracy and gait analysis that showed significant advantages in the robotic arm-assisted group. Methods. A total of 139 patients were recruited from a single centre. Patients were randomised to receive either a manual UKA implanted with the aid of traditional surgical jigs, or a UKA implanted with the aid of a tactile guided robotic arm-assisted system. Outcome measures included the American Knee Society Score (AKSS), Oxford Knee Score (OKS), Forgotten Joint Score, Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale, University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) activity scale, Short Form-12, Pain Catastrophising Scale, somatic disease (Primary Care Evaluation of Mental Disorders Score), Pain visual analogue scale, analgesic use, patient satisfaction, complications relating to surgery, 90-day pain diaries and the requirement for revision surgery. Results. From the first post-operative day through to week 8 post-operatively, the median pain scores for the robotic arm-assisted group were 55.4% lower than those observed in the manual surgery group (p = 0.040). At three months post-operatively, the robotic arm-assisted group had better AKSS (robotic median 164, interquartile range (IQR) 131 to 178, manual median 143, IQR 132 to 166), although no difference was noted with the OKS. At one year post-operatively, the observed differences with the AKSS had narrowed from a median of 21 points to a median of seven points (p = 0.106) (robotic median 171, IQR 153 to 179; manual median 164, IQR 144 to 182). No difference was observed with the OKS, and almost half of each group reached the ceiling limit of the score (OKS > 43). A greater proportion of patients receiving robotic arm-assisted surgery improved their UCLA activity score. Binary logistic regression modelling for dichotomised outcome scores predicted the key factors associated with achieving excellent outcome on the AKSS: a pre-operative activity level > 5 on the UCLA activity score and use of robotic-arm surgery. For the same regression modelling, factors associated with a poor outcome were manual surgery and pre-operative depression. Conclusion. Robotic arm-assisted surgery results in improved early pain scores and early function scores in some patient-reported outcomes measures, but no difference was observed at one year post-operatively. Although improved results favoured the robotic arm-assisted group in active patients (i.e. UCLA ⩾ 5), these do not withstand adjustment for multiple comparisons. Cite this article: M. J. G. Blyth, I. Anthony, P. Rowe, M. S. Banger, A. MacLean, B. Jones. Robotic arm-assisted versus conventional unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: Exploratory secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial. Bone Joint Res 2017;6:631–639. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.611.BJR-2017-0060.R1

Objectives. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is an alternative to total knee arthroplasty for patients who require treatment of single-compartment osteoarthritis, especially for young patients. To satisfy this requirement, new patient-specific prosthetic designs have been introduced. The patient-specific UKA is designed on the basis of data from preoperative medical images. In general, knee implant design with increased conformity has been developed to provide lower contact stress and reduced wear on the tibial insert compared with flat knee designs. The different tibiofemoral conformity may provide designers the opportunity to address both wear and kinematic design goals simultaneously. The aim of this study was to evaluate wear prediction with respect to tibiofemoral conformity design in patient-specific UKA under gait loading conditions by using a previously validated computational wear method. Methods. Three designs with different conformities were developed with the same femoral component: a flat design normally used in fixed-bearing UKA, a tibia plateau anatomy mimetic (AM) design, and an increased conforming design. We investigated the kinematics, contact stress, contact area, wear rate, and volumetric wear of the three different tibial insert designs. Results. Conforming increased design showed a lower contact stress and increased contact area. In addition, increased conformity resulted in a reduction of the wear rate and volumetric wear. However, the increased conformity design showed limited kinematics. Conclusion. Our results indicated that increased conformity provided improvements in wear but resulted in limited kinematics. Therefore, increased conformity should be avoided in fixed-bearing patient-specific UKA design. We recommend a flat or plateau AM tibial insert design in patient-specific UKA. Cite this article: Y-G. Koh, K-M. Park, H-Y. Lee, K-T. Kang. Influence of tibiofemoral congruency design on the wear of patient-specific unicompartmental knee arthroplasty using finite element analysis. Bone Joint Res 2019;8:156–164. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.83.BJR-2018-0193.R1

Source of the study: University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) has benefits for patients with appropriate indications. However, UKA has a higher risk of revision, particularly for low-usage surgeons. The introduction of robotic-arm assisted systems may allow for improved outcomes but is also associated with a learning curve. We aimed to characterise the learning curve of a robotic-arm assisted system (MAKO) for UKA in terms of operative time, limb alignment, component sizing, and patient outcomes. Operative times, pre- and post-surgical limb alignments, and component sizing were prospectively recorded for consecutive cases of primary medial UKA between 2017 and 2021 (n=152, 5 surgeons). Patient outcomes were captured with the Oxford Knee Score (OKS), EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D), Forgotten Joint Score (FJS-12) and re-operation events up to two years post-UKA. A Cumulative Summation (CUSUM) method was used to estimate learning curves and to distinguish between learning and proficiency phases. Introduction of the system had a learning curve of 11 cases. There was increased operative time of 13 minutes between learning and proficiency phases (learning 98 mins vs. proficiency 85 mins; p<0.001), associated with navigation registration and bone preparation/cutting. A learning curve was also found with polyethylene insert sizing (p=0.03). No difference in patient outcomes between the two phases were detected for patient-reported outcome measures, implant survival (both phases 98%; NS) or re-operation (learning 100% vs. proficiency: 96%; NS). Implant survival and re-operation rates did not differ between low and high usage surgeons (cut-off of 12 UKAs per year). Introduction of the robotic-arm assisted system for UKA led to increased operative times for navigation registration and bone preparation, but no differences were detected in terms of component placement or patient outcomes regardless of usage. The short learning curve regardless of UKA usage indicated that robotic-arm assisted UKA may be particularly useful for low-usage surgeons

Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) has a higher risk of revision than total knee arthroplasty, particularly for low volume surgeons. The recent introduction of robotic-arm assisted systems has allowed for increased accuracy, however new systems typically have learning curves. The objective of this study was to determine the learning curve of a robotic-arm assisted system for UKA. Methods A total of 152 consecutive robotic-arm assisted primary medial UKA were performed by five surgeons between 2017 and 2021. Operative times, implant positioning, reoperations and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMS; Oxford Knee Score, EuroQol-5D, and Forgotten Joint Score) were recorded. There was a learning curve of 11 cases with the system that was associated with increased operative time (13 minutes, p<0.01) and improved insert sizing over time (p=0.03). There was no difference in implant survival (98.2%) between learning and proficiency phases (p = 0.15), and no difference in survivorship between ‘high’ and ‘low’ usage surgeons (p = 0.23) at 36 months. There were no differences in PROMS related to the learning curve. This suggested that the learning curve did not lead to early adverse effects in this patient cohort. The introduction of a robotic-arm assisted UKA system led to learning curves for operative time and implant sizing, but there was no effect on patient outcomes at early follow- up. The short learning curve was independent of UKA usage and indicated that robotic-arm assisted UKA may be particularly useful for low-usage surgeons

Abstract. Aims. The association between body mass index (BMI) and venous thromboembolism (VTE) is well studied, but remains unclear in the literature. We aimed to determine whether morbid obesity (BMI≥40) was associated with increased risk of VTE following total knee arthroplasty (TKA) or unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA), compared to those of BMI<40. Methods. Between January 2016 and December 2020, our institution performed 4506 TKAs and 449 UKAs. 450 (9.1%) patients had a BMI≥40. CT pulmonary angiography (CTPA) for suspected pulmonary embolism (PE) and ultrasound scan for suspected proximal deep vein thrombosis (DVT) were recorded up to 90 days post-operatively. Results. When comparing those of BMI<40 to those with BMI≥40, there was no difference in incidence of PE (1.0% vs 1.1%, p=0.803) or proximal DVT (0.4% vs 0.2%, p=0.645). There was no difference in number of ultrasound scans ordered (p=0.668), or number of CTPAs ordered for those with a BMI≥40 (p=0.176). The percentage of patients with a confirmed PE or proximal DVT were 24.2% and 3.9% respectively in the BMI<40 group, compared to 20.0% (p=0.804) and 2.3% (p=0.598) in the BMI≥40 group. Conclusion. Morbid obesity was not associated with increased risk of PE or proximal DVT within 90 days of TKA or UKA. Overall, 76.3% of CTPAs and 96.2% of ultrasound scans were negative. Increasing the threshold for VTE investigation would reduce the rate of negative investigations. Establishing more effective risk stratification protocols, to guide investigation, would likely reduce unnecessary imaging

Introduction. There has been renewed interest in the unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with reports of good long term outcomes. Advantages over a more extensive knee replacement include: preservation of bone stock, retention of both cruciate ligaments, preservation of other compartments and better knee kinematics. However, a number of authors have commented on the problem of osseous defects requiring technically difficult revision surgery. Furthermore, a number of recent national register studies have shown inferior survivorship when compared to total knee arthroplasty. The purpose of this study was to review the cases of our patients who had a revision total knee arthroplasty for failed unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. To determine the reason for failure, describe the technical difficulties during revision surgery and record the clinical outcomes of the revision arthroplasties. Methods. Between 2003 and 2009 our institute performed thirty three revisions of a unicompartmental knee arthroplasty on thirty two patients. The time to revision surgery ranged from 2 months to 159 months with a median of 19 months. Details of the operations and complications were taken form case notes. Patient assessment included range of motion, need for walking aids and the functional status of the affected knee in the form of the Oxford knee score questionnaire. Results. The reasons for failure were aseptic loosening of tibial component, persistent pain, dislocated meniscus, mal-alignment and osteoarthritis in another compartment. Of the 33 revision knee arthroplasties 18 required additional intra-operative constructs. 11 knees required a long tibial stem while 1 required a long femoral stem. 10 knees required medial wedge augmentation and bone graft was used in 6. Mean 1 year Oxford knee scores for failed unicompartmental knee replacements was 29 compared to 39 for primary total knee replacements performed at the same institute. Of the revision knee replacements 2 required further revision due to infection and loosening. Conclusion. From the evidence of our group of failed unicompartmental knee replacements, revision surgery is technically difficult and often requires intra-operative constructs. Clinical outcome of revision total knee arthroplasty following failed unicompartmental knee arthroplasty is not comparable to primary total knee arthroplasty