To identify unanswered questions about the prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and rehabilitation and delivery of care of first-time soft-tissue knee injuries (ligament injuries, patella dislocations, meniscal injuries, and articular cartilage) in children (aged 12 years and older) and adults. The James Lind Alliance (JLA) methodology for Priority Setting Partnerships was followed. An initial survey invited patients and healthcare professionals from the UK to submit any uncertainties regarding soft-tissue knee injury prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and rehabilitation and delivery of care. Over 1,000 questions were received. From these, 74 questions (identifying common concerns) were formulated and checked against the best available evidence. An interim survey was then conducted and 27 questions were taken forward to the final workshop, held in January 2023, where they were discussed, ranked, and scored in multiple rounds of prioritization. This was conducted by healthcare professionals, patients, and carers.Aims
Methods
The James Lind Alliance aims to bring patients, carers, and clinicians together to identify uncertainties regarding care. A Priority Setting Partnership was established by the British Association for Surgery of the Knee in conjunction with the James Lind Alliance to identify research priorities related to the assessment, management, and rehabilitation of patients with persistent symptoms after knee arthroplasty. The project was conducted using the James Lind Alliance protocol. A steering group was convened including patients, surgeons, anaesthetists, nurses, physiotherapists, and researchers. Partner organizations were recruited. A survey was conducted on a national scale through which patients, carers, and healthcare professionals submitted key unanswered questions relating to problematic knee arthroplasties. These were analyzed, aggregated, and synthesized into summary questions and the relevant evidence was checked. After confirming that these were not answered in the current literature, 32 questions were taken forward to an interim prioritization survey. Data from this survey informed a shortlist taken to a final consensus meeting.Aims
Methods
This study reports on the medium- to long-term implant survivorship
and patient-reported outcomes for the Avon patellofemoral joint
(PFJ) arthroplasty. A total of 558 Avon PFJ arthroplasties in 431 patients, with
minimum two-year follow-up, were identified from a prospective database.
Patient-reported outcomes and implant survivorship were analyzed,
with follow-up of up to 18 years.Aims
Patients and Methods
As part of the national initiative to reduce
waiting times for joint replacement surgery in Wales, the Cardiff
and Vale NHS Trust referred 224 patients to the NHS Treatment Centre
in Weston-Super-Mare for total knee replacement (TKR). A total of
258 Kinemax TKRs were performed between November 2004 and August
2006. Of these, a total of 199 patients (232 TKRs, 90%) have been
followed up for five years. This cohort was compared with 258 consecutive
TKRs in 250 patients, performed at Cardiff and Vale Orthopaedic
Centre (CAVOC) over a similar time period. The five year cumulative
survival rate was 80.6% (95% confidence interval (CI) 74.0 to 86.0)
in the Weston-Super-Mare cohort and 95.0% (95% CI 90.2 to 98.2)
in the CAVOC cohort with revision for any reason as the endpoint.
The relative risk for revision at Weston-Super-Mare compared with
CAVOC was 3.88 (p <
0.001). For implants surviving five years,
the mean Oxford knee scores (OKS) and mean EuroQol (EQ-5D) scores
were similar (OKS: Weston-Super-Mare 29 (2 to 47) The results show a higher revision rate for patients operated
at Weston-Super-Mare Treatment Centre, with a reduction in functional
outcome and quality of life after revision. This further confirms
that patients moved from one area to another for joint replacement
surgery fare poorly.
Using meta-analysis we compared the survival and clinical outcomes of cemented and uncemented techniques in primary total knee replacement. We reviewed randomised controlled trials and observational studies comparing cemented and uncemented fixation. Our primary outcome was survival of the implant free of aseptic loosening. Our secondary outcome was joint function as measured by the Knee Society score. We identified 15 studies that met our final eligibility criteria. The combined odds ratio for failure of the implant due to aseptic loosening for the uncemented group was 4.2 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.7 to 6.5) (p <
0.0001). Subgroup analysis of data only from randomised controlled trials showed no differences between the groups for odds of aseptic loosening (odds ratio 1.9, 95% CI 0.55 to 6.40, p = 0.314). The weighted mean difference for the Knee Society score was 0.005 (95% CI −0.26 to 0.26) (p = 0.972). There was improved survival of the cemented compared to uncemented implants, with no statistically significant difference in the mean Knee Society score between groups for all pooled data.
