Aims. Multiligament knee injuries (MLKI) are devastating injuries that can result in significant morbidity and time away from sport. There remains considerable variation in strategies employed for investigation, indications for operative intervention, outcome reporting, and rehabilitation following these injuries. At present no study has yet provided a comprehensive overview evaluating the extent, range, and overall summary of the published literature pertaining to MLKI. Our aim is to perform a methodologically rigorous scoping review, mapping the literature evaluating the diagnosis and management of MLKI. Methods. This scoping review will address three aims: firstly, to map the current extent and nature of evidence for diagnosis and management of MLKI; secondly, to summarize and disseminate existing research findings to practitioners; and thirdly, to highlight gaps in current literature. A three-step search strategy as described by accepted methodology will be employed to identify peer-reviewed literature including reviews, technical notes, opinion pieces, and original research. An initial limited search will be performed to determine suitable search terms, followed by an expanded search of four electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Web of Science). Two reviewers will independently screen identified studies for final inclusion. Dissemination. We will map key concepts and evidence, and disseminate existing research findings to the wider orthopaedic and sports medicine community, through both peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed literature, and conference and in-person communications. We will highlight gaps in the current literature and determine future priorities for further research. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(11):894–897

Abstract. Introduction. Knee arthrodesis is one of the treatment options for limb salvage of a failed total knee replacement (TKR) when further revisions were contraindicated. The aim of this study is to determine patient outcomes after knee arthrodesis (KA) following a failed TKR. Methodology. A literature search was conducted for studies published from January 2000 through January 2022 via Medline, Web of Science, Embase and Cochrane databases. Only primary research studies were included with independent extraction of articles by two reviewers. Results were synthesised by narrative review according to PRISMA guidelines, with full tabulation of all included study results. Results. A total of 34 studies with 1,034 patients were included in the review; all were longitudinal observational studies, and none were conducted as randomised controlled trials. Reporting methods were very inconsistent in the included studies, and this heterogeneity led to pooled data totals that varied widely in different categories. The mean follow-up was 3.5 years. Overall, 72.0% (167 of 232) of patients used a walking stick and 12.5% (36 of 287) remained non-ambulatory after KA. Only 7.7% (58 of 752) of patients subsequently underwent above-knee amputation. Conclusion. KA is a potential limb salvage procedure after revision arthroplasties have been attempted in cases of failed TKR. Most patients were able to ambulate both at home and in the community, although with an increased rate of using a walking stick after the operation. However, in the absence of randomised controlled trials, these data may allow for a more accurate counselling and decision making

Aims. There are two techniques widely used to determine the rotational alignment of the components in total knee arthroplasty (TKA); gap balancing (GB) and measured resection (MR). Which technique is the best remains controversial. We aimed to investigate this in a systematic review and meta-analysis. Materials and Methods. In accordance with the methods of Cochrane, databases were searched for all randomised controlled trials in the literature between January 1986 and June 2015 comparing radiographic and clinical outcomes between the use of these two tecniques. Meta-analysis involved the use of the Revman5.3 software provided by Cochrane collaboration. Results. A total of 1464 papers were initially identified, and after the application of rigourous inclusion and exclusion critera, eight were included in the study. In total they inolved 980 TKAs. The meta-analysis showed that GB techniques resulted in statistically significant improvements in the restoration of mechanical and rotational alignment and mean Knee Society Scores and Knee Society Function scores two years post-operatively, but resulted in greater elevation of the position of the joint line. There is no significant difference in the other radiographic data. Conclusion. This study suggests that GB may provide better radiographic and clinical outcomes than MR when used to determine mechanical rotation in TKAs. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:151–8

Aims

Many surgeons choose to perform total knee arthroplasty (TKA) surgery with the aid of a tourniquet. A tourniquet is a device that fits around the leg and restricts blood flow to the limb. There is a need to understand whether tourniquets are safe, and if they benefit, or harm, patients. The aim of this study was to determine the benefits and harms of tourniquet use in TKA surgery.

Aims

Patients with a deformity of the hindfoot present a particular challenge when performing total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The literature contains little information about the relationship between TKA and hindfoot alignment. This systematic review aimed to determine from both clinical and radiological studies whether TKA would alter a preoperative hindfoot deformity and whether the outcome of TKA is affected by the presence of a postoperative hindfoot deformity.

Aims

The aim of this consensus was to develop a definition of post-operative fibrosis of the knee.

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.