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.

Aims. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) has higher revision rates than total knee arthroplasty (TKA). As revision of UKA may be less technically demanding than revision TKA, UKA patients with poor functional outcomes may be more likely to be offered revision than TKA patients with similar outcomes. The aim of this study was to compare clinical thresholds for revisions between TKA and UKA using revision incidence and patient-reported outcomes, in a large, matched cohort at early, mid-, and late-term follow-up. Methods. Analyses were performed on propensity score-matched patient cohorts of TKAs and UKAs (2:1) registered in the New Zealand Joint Registry between 1 January 1999 and 31 December 2019 with an Oxford Knee Score (OKS) response at six months (n, TKA: 16,774; UKA: 8,387), five years (TKA: 6,718; UKA: 3,359), or ten years (TKA: 3,486; UKA: 1,743). Associations between OKS and revision within two years following the score were examined. Thresholds were compared using receiver operating characteristic analysis. Reasons for aseptic revision were compared using cumulative incidence with competing risk. Results. 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 = 0.024). Compared with TKA, the relative risk for UKA was 2.5-times higher for ‘unknown’ reasons, bearing dislocations, and disease progression. Conclusion. Compared with TKA, more UKA patients with poor outcomes underwent revision from early to long-term follow-up, and were more likely to undergo revision for ‘unknown’ reasons, which suggest a lower clinical threshold for UKA. For UKA, revision risk was higher for bearing dislocations and disease progression. There is supporting evidence that the higher revision UKA rates are associated with lower clinical thresholds for revision and additional modes of failure. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(3):269–276

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

Aims

Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) has a higher risk of revision than total knee arthroplasty (TKA), particularly for younger patients. The outcome of knee arthroplasty is typically defined as implant survival or revision incidence after a defined number of years. This can be difficult for patients to conceptualize. We aimed to calculate the ‘lifetime risk’ of revision for UKA as a more meaningful estimate of risk projection over a patient’s remaining lifetime, and to compare this to TKA.

Aims

Medial pivot (MP) total knee arthroplasties (TKAs) were designed to mimic native knee kinematics with their deep medial congruent fitting of the tibia to the femur almost like a ball-on-socket, and a flat lateral part. GMK Sphere is a novel MP implant. Our primary aim was to study the migration pattern of the tibial tray of this TKA.

Aims

It has been hypothesized that a unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is more likely to be revised than a total knee arthroplasty (TKA) because conversion surgery to a primary TKA is a less complicated procedure. The purpose of this study was to determine if there is a lower threshold for revising a UKA compared with TKA based on Oxford Knee Scores (OKSs) and range of movement (ROM) at the time of revision.

Introduction. We investigated predictors of poor outcomes following metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty (MoMHA) revision surgery performed for adverse reactions to metal debris (ARMD), to help inform the revision threshold and type of reconstruction. Patients and Methods. A retrospective cohort study was performed involving 346 MoMHAs revised for histologically confirmed ARMD at two specialist centres (245=hip resurfacing, 101=total hip arthroplasty). Numerous preoperative (blood metal ions and imaging) and intraoperative (findings, and components removed/implanted) factors were used to predict poor outcomes. Poor outcomes were postoperative complications (including re-revisions), 90-day mortality, and poor Oxford Hip Scores (<27/48). Multivariable logistic regression models for predicting poor outcomes were developed using stepwise selection methods. Results. Cumulative implant survival rate seven-years after ARMD revision was 87.0% (95% CI=81.0%-91.2%). Poor outcomes occurred in 39% (n=135). Shorter time (under four-years) from primary to revision surgery (odds ratio (OR)=2.12, CI=1.00–4.46) was the only preoperative predictor of poor outcomes. Pre-revision metal ions and imaging did not influence outcomes. Single-component revisions increased the risk of poor outcomes (acetabular or femoral vs. all component revisions; OR=2.99, CI=1.50–5.97). Intraoperative factors reducing the risk of poor outcomes included the posterior approach (OR=0.22, CI=0.10–0.49), revision head sizes ≥36mm (vs. <36mm: OR=0.37, CI=0.18–0.77), ceramic-on-polyethylene (OR vs. ceramic-on-ceramic=0.30, CI=0.14–0.66) and metal-on-polyethylene revision bearings (OR vs. ceramic-on-ceramic=0.37, CI=0.17–0.83). Discussion. This large cohort study demonstrated 39% of patients experience poor outcomes following MoMHA revision for ARMD. This information will help surgeons when counselling patient's pre-revision about the expected prognosis. No threshold exists for recommending ARMD revision, therefore surgeons must make decisions on an individual case basis. However, surgeons can make intraoperative decisions that influence outcomes following ARMD revision. Conclusion. We recommend optimal outcomes following ARMD revision may be achieved if surgeons use the posterior approach, revise all MoMHA components, and use ≥36mm ceramic-on-polyethylene or metal-on-polyethylene articulations

Outcomes following metal-on-metal hip replacement (MoMHR) revision surgery for adverse reactions to metal debris (ARMD) have been poor, and inferior compared with non-ARMD revisions. Subsequently, surgeons and worldwide authorities widely recommended early revision for ARMD, with a lower surgical threshold adopted. However, the impact of early surgery for ARMD is unknown. We compared the rates of adverse outcomes following MoMHR revision surgery in matched ARMD and non-ARMD patients. We performed a retrospective observational study using data from the National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man. All MoMHR patients subsequently undergoing revision surgery for any indication between August 2008 and August 2014 were eligible. ARMD and non-ARMD revisions were matched one-to-one for multiple potential confounding factors using propensity scores. Adverse outcomes following revision surgery (intra-operative complications, mortality, re-revision surgery) were compared between matched groups using regression analysis. In 2,576 matched MoMHR revisions (ARMD=1,288 and non-ARMD=1,288), intra-operative complications were similar between ARMD (2.4%) and non-ARMD (2.5%) revisions (odds ratio=0.97, 95% CI=0.59–1.60; p=0.899). All-cause mortality rates were lower following ARMD revision compared with non-ARMD revision (hazard ratio (HR)=0.43, 95% CI=0.22–0.86; p=0.018). All-cause re-revision rates were lower following ARMD revision compared with non-ARMD revision (HR=0.52, 95% CI=0.36–0.75; p<0.001). Compared with ARMD revision (5-years=94.3%), MoMHR revisions for infection (5-years=81.2%) and dislocation/subluxation (5-years=81.9%) had the lowest implant survival rates. Contrary to previous observations, MoMHRs revised for ARMD have approximately half the risk of re-revision and death compared to non-ARMD revisions. We suspect worldwide regulatory authorities have positively influenced outcomes following ARMD revision by widely recommending that surgeons exercise a lower revision threshold. Our findings suggest the threshold for ARMD revision surgery need not be lowered further. The high risk of failure following MoMHR revision for infection and dislocation is concerning

Following arthroplasty of the knee, the patient’s perception of improvement in symptoms is fundamental to the assessment of outcome. Better clinical outcome may offset the inferior survival observed for some types of implant. By examining linked National Joint Registry (NJR) and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) data, we aimed to compare PROMs collected at a minimum of six months post-operatively for total (TKR: n = 23 393) and unicondylar knee replacements (UKR: n = 505). Improvements in knee-specific (Oxford knee score, OKS) and generic (EuroQol, EQ-5D) scores were compared and adjusted for case-mix differences using multiple regression. Whereas the improvements in the OKS and EQ-5D were significantly greater for TKR than for UKR, once adjustments were made for case-mix differences and pre-operative score, the improvements in the two scores were not significantly different. The adjusted mean differences in the improvement of OKS and EQ-5D were 0.0 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.9 to 0.9; p = 0.96) and 0.009 (95% CI -0.034 to 0.015; p = 0.37), respectively.

We found no difference in the improvement of either knee-specific or general health outcomes between TKR and UKR in a large cohort of registry patients. With concerns about significantly higher revision rates for UKR observed in worldwide registries, we question the widespread use of an arthroplasty that does not confer a significant benefit in clinical outcome.

The glenoid is the ‘weak link’ in total shoulder arthroplasty. Concerns exist over loosening of all glenoid components. Metal back glenoid components have, in some reports, had early problems with liner dissociation, polyethylene wear, osteolysis and component fracture. In November 2003 the first metal back SMR total shoulder replacement was implanted in New Zealand (NZ). We reviewed the NZ joint registry information on anatomical total shoulder replacements over a 5-year period from the end of 2003. There were 192 metal back SMR prostheses (Lima) implanted and 484 cemented prostheses (all brands). 70% of patients in each group completed an Oxford score at 6 months. The mean score in both groups was 40.39. There was no statistically significant difference in the revision rate in this period for revisions of any kind (p=0.07). 6/192 metal back cases had a revision procedure, but none were for the glenoid component. 7/484 cemented cases had a revision procedure with 3 being for glenoid loosening. None of the metal back glenoids were revised in this period. 5 of the cemented glenoids were revised in this period. There was a higher revision rate for instability in the metal back group with 5 in the metal back group and 2 in the cemented group being revised for instability (p=0.01). In the metal back group there were 3 revisions to a reverse shoulder arthroplasty without removal of the metal back glenoid base plate. We have not identified an early cause for concern with the use of the metal back SMR prosthesis in anatomical total shoulder replacement in New Zealand. It is possible, but not proven, that the modularity of the implant may lower the revision threshold for some cases. Reassuringly, there were no revisions of the metal back glenoid in this early period

Purpose of the study: Prior assessment of haemorrhagic risk appears to be an essential element in orthopaedic surgery, particularly for lower limb procedures. This assessment is necessary for information delivery to the patient, for elaborating a transfusion strategy, and to choose between different therapeutic options. Despite this potential interest, data which could be used to validate this hypothesis and define and quantify what is called “haemorrhagic risk” are scarce in the literature. In order to furnish a preliminary element for reflection on this topic, a sample of 450 orthopaedic surgeons and 50 anaesthetists who perform routine arthropathy procedures for the lower limb were questioned. Material and methods: This was an Internet questionnaire with 13 questions. Five hundred practitioners were surveyed in five western countries (France, Germany, United Kingdom, Spain, United States), 100 in each country. Results: Globally, 90% of the practitioners considered it “important” or “very important” to evaluate the haemorrhagic risk. This percentage varied from 83% to 98% depending on the country. The main haemorrhagic complication was considered to be operative site bleeding, intra- or postoperatively, for 95% of the practitioners (89% to 98%) after hip or knee arthroplasty. The possible consequences of this haemorrhage were classified according to their gravity. Vital risk was classified N1, but not systematically or unanimously, since, for example, 75% of the French practitioners did not place vital risk in this category. Three other criteria of gravity of operative bleeding were reported, but with no clear hierarchy:. requirement for a revision of the operative site;. volume of blood loss considered important because of a drop in the haemoglobin to 4 – 6.5 g/dl, or transfusion of 2.4 – 3 packed cell units;. complications related to the haematoma, difficulties for rehabilitation or longer hospital stay. Discussion: This survey showed that evaluation of haemorrhagic risk is considered to be an important element in orthopaedic practice, particularly operative site bleeding. The main elements constituting signs of gravity were: vital risk, revision, a threshold of blood loss, and constitution of a haematoma

The Norwegian Arthroplasty Register has shown that several designs of uncemented femoral stems give good or excellent survivorship. The overall findings for uncemented total hip replacement however, have been disappointing because of poor results with the use of metal-backed acetabular components. In this study, we exclusively investigated the medium-to long-term performance of primary uncemented metal-backed acetabular components.

A total of 9113 primary uncemented acetabular components were implanted in 7937 patients between 1987 and 2007. These were included in a prospective, population-based observational study. All the implants were modular and metal-backed with ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene liners. The femoral heads were made of stainless steel, cobalt-chrome (CoCr) alloy or alumina ceramic. In all, seven different designs of acetabular component were evaluated by the Kaplan-Meier survivorship method and Cox regression analysis.

Most acetabular components performed well up to seven years. When the endpoint was revision of the acetabular component because of aseptic loosening, the survival ranged between 87% and 100% at ten years. However, when the endpoint was revision for any reason, the survival estimates were 81% to 92% for the same implants at ten years. Aseptic loosening, wear, osteolysis and dislocation were the main reasons for the relatively poor overall performance of the acetabular components. Prostheses with alumina heads performed slightly better than those with stainless steel or CoCr alloy in subgroups.

Whereas most acetabular components performed well at seven years, the survivorship declined with longer follow-up. Fixation was generally good. None of the metal-backed uncemented acetabular components with ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene liners in our study had satisfactory long-term results because of high rates of wear, osteolysis, aseptic loosening and dislocation.