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

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

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: 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. 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. 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

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

Abstract. Objectives. Patella resurfacing in primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) remains a contentious issue. Australian rates of patellar resurfacing are 66.6%, significantly higher compared to UK rates of 8–15% and Swedish rates of 2%. Resurfacing has gained popularity in Australia since registry data has shown decreased revision rates with no increase in patellar component related complications. We present for discussion an analysis of 113,694 total knee arthroplasties using commonly implanted prostheses in the UK. Methods. We included all TKA's since the Australian register's conception on 01/09/1999 for a primary diagnosis of osteoarthritis involving the use of either the Triathlon or Duracon implant with and without patellar components. The primary outcome of the study was time to revision for Triathlon's resurfaced and non-resurfaced prosthesis compared to the Duracon's equivalent data. We also analysed the reasons for revision between the 4 groups, type of revision and complication rates. We then compared minimally stabilised and posterior stabilised prostheses. Results. The cumulative revision rate for Triathlon prostheses with resurfacing after 12 years was 3.2% (95% CI, 2.9% to 3.6%) compared to 5.6% (95% CI, 5.0% to 6.2%) without resurfacing. Duracon's equivalent data was 6.3% with resurfacing and 5.9% without resurfacing. Triathlon prosthesis with resurfacing have much lower rates of revision due to loosening, patellofemoral pain, patellar erosion compared to unresurfaced Triathlon prostheses. Conclusion. Triathlon with re-surfacing has lower revision rates regardless of age or BMI. Previous concerns regarding patellofemoral loosening, tibial wear, maltracking relate to Duracon only, indicating the importance of implant specific studies. 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

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

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

Reports of improved functional outcome of Metal on Metal Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty (mHRA) to Total Hip Replacement needs to be balanced with concerns of metal ion release. By removing cobalt-chrome, cHRA reduces these risks. To the author's knowledge, there is no data available on functional outcomes of cHRA, therefore the aim of the study was to compare the function between cHRA patients and mHRA patients. 24 patients received a unilateral cHRA (H1, Embody) and was compared to 24 age and gender matched patients with a unilateral mHRA (BHR, Smith and Nephew). All patients completed the Oxford Hip Score (OHS)[T2] and underwent gait analysis on an instrumented treadmill before and at a mean of 74wks (+/− 10) for mHRA and 53wks (+/− 2) for cHRA post op. Walking trials started at 4km/h and increased in 0.5km/h increments until a top walking speed (TWS) was achieved. Vertical ground reaction forces (GRF) were recorded along with the symmetry index (SI). Spatiotemporal measures of gait were also recorded. Vertical GRF were captured for the entire normalised stance phase using statistical parametric mapping (SPM; CI = 95%). The gain in OHS was similar: H1 (25-46), BHR(27-47). TWS increased by 19% with H1 (6.02 – 8.0km/hr), and 20% with BHR (6.02 – 7.37km/hr). SPM of the entire gait cycle illustrated the restoration of symmetry in both groups with no difference in GRF across the stance phase between groups at 5km/hr pre-op and post-op. At faster speeds (6.5km/hr), H1 patients had a mid-support GRF slightly closer to normal compared to BHR. Both groups increased step length similar from pre to post op (H1:0.76 – 0.85cm, BHR:0.77-0.86cm). In this study, subjective and objective functional outcome measures suggest that short term functional outcomes of ceramic resurfacing is not inferior to metal resurfacing

In metal-on-metal (MoM) hip replacements or resurfacings, mechanical induced corrosion can lead to a local inflammatory response, pseudo tumours and elevated serum metal ions, requiring revision surgery. The size and diametral clearance of Anatomic (ADM) and Modular (MDM) Dual Mobility bearings matches that of certain MOM components. Presenting the opportunity for revision with exchange of the metal head for ADM/MDM bearings without removal of the acetabular component if it is well-fixed and appropriately positioned. Between 2012 and 2020, across two centres, 94 patients underwent revision of a MoM hip replacement or resurfacing. The mean age was 65.5 (33–87) years. 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). DM was only considered where the acetabular component was satisfactorily positioned and well-integrated into bone, with no surface damage. Patients underwent clinical and radiographic follow-up to at least one-year (mean 42.4 (12–96) months). One (1.1%) patient died before one-year, for reasons unrelated to the surgery. 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 (12.2%) 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, operative time (68.4 v 101.5 mins, p<0.001), postoperative drop in haemoglobin (16.6 v 27.8 g/L, p<0.001), and length of stay (1.8 v 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 both Cobalt and Chromium) although there was no difference between groups for this reduction (p=0.674 Cobalt; p=0.186 Chromium). In selected patients with MoM hip arthroplasty, where the acetabular component is well-fixed, in a satisfactory position and there is no surface damage, the metal head can be exchanged for ADM/MDM bearings with retention of the acetabular prosthesis. Presenting significant benefits through a less invasive procedure, and a low risk of complications, including dislocation

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

There is a lack of evidence surrounding selective patella resurfacing, but patella cartilage loss at time of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is often used as an indication in those who perform it. This study compares the outcomes of TKA without patella resurfacing in patients with and without patella cartilage loss (PFOA). Prospective case control study of 209 consecutive patients undergoing cruciate retaining single radius TKA without patella resurfacing for KL≥3 osteoarthritis. The presence and location of full thickness patella cartilage loss was documented intra-operatively at TKA, identifying n=108 cases with PFOA (mean age 70±9.7, mean BMI 31±6.2, 72 (67%) female) Vs n=101 controls without PFOA (age 68±9.2, BMI31±5.6, 52 (51%) female). Primary outcome measure was improvement in the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) at one year. There were more females in the PFOA group (67% Vs 51%, p=0.037), but no other preoperative differences. There was no difference in preoperative OKS between patients with patella cartilage loss (20.6±7.9) and those without (21.0±7.2, p=0.720). There was no difference in OKS improvement following TKA without patella resurfacing between those with full thickness patella cartilage loss (14.2±9.8) and those without (15.4±9.5, p=0.365). Facet involvement (number and location) did not affect OKSs. No differences were found in the individual OKS questions between groups (p>0.05). There was no difference in one-year OKS or improvements therein between patients with and without full thickness patella cartilage loss treated with single radius cruciate retaining TKA without patella resurfacing, questioning its use an indication for selective patella resurfacing