Aims. Joint registries classify all further arthroplasty procedures to a knee with an existing partial arthroplasty as revision surgery, regardless of the actual procedure performed. Relatively minor procedures, including bearing exchanges, are classified in the same way as major operations requiring augments and stems. A new classification system is proposed to acknowledge and describe the detail of these procedures, which has implications for risk, recovery, and health economics. Methods. Classification categories were proposed by a surgical consensus group, then ranked by patients, according to perceived invasiveness and implications for recovery. In round one, 26 revision cases were classified by the consensus group. Results were tested for inter-rater reliability. In round two, four additional cases were added for clarity. Round three repeated the survey one month later, subject to inter- and intrarater reliability testing. In round four, five additional expert partial knee arthroplasty surgeons were asked to classify the 30 cases according to the proposed revision partial knee classification (RPKC) system. Results. Four classes were proposed: PR1, where no bone-implant interfaces are affected; PR2, where surgery does not include conversion to total knee arthroplasty, for example, a second partial arthroplasty to a native compartment; PR3, when a standard primary total knee prosthesis is used; and PR4 when revision components are necessary. Round one resulted in 92% inter-rater agreement (Kendall’s W 0.97; p < 0.005), rising to 93% in round two (Kendall’s W 0.98; p < 0.001). Round three demonstrated 97% agreement (Kendall’s W 0.98; p < 0.001), with high intra-rater reliability (interclass correlation coefficient (ICC) 0.99; 95% confidence interval 0.98 to 0.99). Round four resulted in 80% agreement (Kendall’s W 0.92; p < 0.001). Conclusion. The RPKC system accounts for all procedures which may be appropriate following partial knee arthroplasty. It has been shown to be reliable, repeatable and pragmatic. The implications for patient care and health economics are discussed. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(8):638–645

Aims

Patient dissatisfaction following primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) with manual jig-based instruments has been reported to be as high as 30%. Robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty (RA-TKA) has been increasingly used in an effort to improve patient outcomes, however there is a paucity of literature examining patient satisfaction after RA-TKA. This study aims to identify the incidence of patients who were not satisfied following RA-TKA and to determine factors associated with higher levels of dissatisfaction.

Aims

Stiffness is a common complication after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Pathogenesis is not understood, treatment options are limited, and diagnosis is challenging. The aim of this study was to investigate if MRI can be used to visualize intra-articular scarring in patients with stiff, painful knee arthroplasties.

Objectives

The purpose of this study was to compare the joint space width between one-leg and both-legs standing radiographs in order to diagnose a primary osteoarthritis of the knee.

There is conflicting evidence about the benefit of using corticosteroid in periarticular injections for pain relief after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). We carried out a double-blinded, randomised controlled trial to assess the efficacy of using corticosteroid in a periarticular injection to control pain after TKA.

A total of 77 patients, 67 women and ten men, with a mean age of 74 years (47 to 88) who were about to undergo unilateral TKA were randomly assigned to have a periarticular injection with or without corticosteroid. The primary outcome was post-operative pain at rest during the first 24 hours after surgery, measured every two hours using a visual analogue pain scale score. The cumulative pain score was quantified using the area under the curve.

The corticosteroid group had a significantly lower cumulative pain score than the no-corticosteroid group during the first 24 hours after surgery (mean area under the curve 139, 0 to 560, and 264, 0 to 1460; p = 0.024). The rate of complications, including surgical site infection, was not significantly different between the two groups up to one year post-operatively.

The addition of corticosteroid to the periarticular injection significantly decreased early post-operative pain. Further studies are needed to confirm the safety of corticosteroid in periarticular injection.

Take home message: The use of corticosteroid in periarticular injection offered better pain relief during the initial 24 hours after TKA.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:194–200.

Objectives

A patient-centred approach, usually achieved through shared decision making, has the potential to help improve decision making around knee arthroplasty surgery. However, such an approach requires an understanding of the factors involved in patient decision making. This review’s objective is to systematically examine the qualitative literature surrounding patients’ decision making in knee arthroplasty.

Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is an established and successful procedure. However, the design of prostheses continues to be modified in an attempt to optimise the functional outcome of the patient.

The aim of this study was to determine if patient outcome after TKA was influenced by the design of the prosthesis used.

A total of 212 patients (mean age 69; 43 to 92; 131 female (62%), 81 male (32%)) were enrolled in a single centre double-blind trial and randomised to receive either a Kinemax (group 1) or a Triathlon (group 2) TKA.

Patients were assessed pre-operatively, at six weeks, six months, one year and three years after surgery. The outcome assessments used were the Oxford Knee Score; range of movement; pain numerical rating scales; lower limb power output; timed functional assessment battery and a satisfaction survey. Data were assessed incorporating change over all assessment time points, using repeated measures analysis of variance longitudinal mixed models. Implant group 2 showed a significantly greater range of movement (p = 0.009), greater lower limb power output (p = 0.026) and reduced report of ‘worst daily pain’ (p = 0.003) over the three years of follow-up. Differences in Oxford Knee Score (p = 0.09), report of ‘average daily pain’ (p = 0.57) and timed functional performance tasks (p = 0.23) did not reach statistical significance. Satisfaction with outcome was significantly better in group 2 (p = 0.001).

These results suggest that patient outcome after TKA can be influenced by the prosthesis used.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:64–70.