Stiffness is reported in up to 16% of patients after total knee replacement (TKR)1. Treatment of stiffness after TKR remains a challenge. Manipulation under anaesthesia (MUA) accounts for between 6%-36% of readmissions following TKR2,3. The outcomes of MUA remain variable/unpredictable. Post-operative CPM is used as an adjuvant to MUA, potentially offering improved ROM, however, remains the subject of debate. We report a retrospective study comparing MUA with and without post-operative CPM. In our institution patients undergoing MUA to receive CPM post-operatively. Owing to the COVID-19 pandemic hospital admissions were limited. During this period MUA procedures were undertaken without CPM. Two cohorts were included: 1) MUA + post-operative CPM 2) Daycase MUA. Patients’ demographics, pre-manipulation ROM, post-MUA ROM, and ROM at final follow-up were recorded. Between 2017-2022 126 patients underwent MUA and were admitted for CPM and 42 had daycase MUA. The median Age was 66.5 and 64% were female. 57% had extension deficit (>5o), 70% had flexion deficit (< 90o), and 37% had both. The mean Pre-operative ROM was 72.3o(SD:18.3o) vs. 68.5o(19.0o), ROM at MUA was 95.5o(SD:20.7o) vs 108.3o(SD:14.1o) [p< 0.01], and at final follow-up 87.4o(SD:21.9o) vs. 92.1o(SD:18.2o) for daycase and CPM groups respectively. At final follow-up for the daycase and CPM groups respectively 10% vs. 7% improved, 29% vs. 13% maintained, and 57% vs. 79% regressed from the ROM achieved at MUA. The mean percentage of ROM gained at MUA maintained at final follow-up was 92%(SD:17) and 85%(SD:14)[p=0.03] for daycase and CPM groups respectively. There was no significant difference in ROM achieved at final follow-up despite the significantly greater improvement in ROM achieved at MUA for the CPM group. The CPM group lost a greater ROM after MUA (15% vs. 8%). We conclude that post-operative CPM does not improve ROM achieved after MUA.
Obesity is prevalent with nearly one third of the world's population being classified as obese. Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is an effective treatment option for high BMI patients achieving similar outcomes to non-obese patients. However, increased rates of aseptic loosening in patients with a high BMI have been reported. In patients with high BMI/body mass there is an increase in strain placed on the implant fixation interfaces. As such component fixation is a potential concern when performing TKA in the obese patient. To address this concern the use of extended tibial stems in cemented implants or cementless fixation have been advocated. Extend tibial stems are thought to improve implant stability reducing the micromotion between interfaces and consequently the risk of aseptic loosening. Cementless implants, once biologic fixation is achieved, effectively integrate into bone eliminating an interface. This retrospective study compared the use of extended tibial stems and cementless implants to conventional cemented implants in high BMI patients. From a prospectively maintained database of 3239 primary Attune TKA (Depuy, Warsaw, Indiana), obese patients (body mass index (BMI) >30 kg/m²) were retrospectively reviewed. Two groups of patients 1) using a tibial stem extension [n=162] and 2) cementless fixation [n=163] were compared to 3) a control group (n=1426) with a standard tibial stem cemented implant. All operations were performed by or under the direct supervision of specialist arthroplasty surgeons. Analysis compared the groups with respect to class I, II, and III (BMI >30kg/m², >35 kg/m², >40 kg/m²) obesity. The primary outcome measures were all-cause revision, revision for aseptic loosening, and revision for tibial loosening. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and Cox regression models were used to compare the primary outcomes between groups. Where radiographic images at greater than 3 months post-operatively were available, radiographs were examined to compare the presence of peri-implant radiolucent lines.Abstract
Objectives
Methods
