Aims. The primary objective of this registry-based study was to compare patient-reported outcomes of cementless and cemented medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) during the first postoperative year. The secondary objective was to assess one- and three-year implant survival of both fixation techniques. Methods. We analyzed 10,862 cementless and 7,917 cemented UKA cases enrolled in the Dutch Arthroplasty Registry, operated between 2017 and 2021. Pre- to postoperative change in outcomes at six and 12 months’ follow-up were compared using mixed model analyses. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression models were applied to quantify differences in implant survival. Adjustments were made for patient-specific variables and annual hospital volume. Results. Change from baseline in the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) and activity-related pain was comparable between groups. Adjustment for covariates demonstrated a minimally greater decrease in rest-related pain in the cemented group (β = -0.09 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.16 to -0.01)). Cementless fixation was associated with a higher probability of achieving an excellent OKS outcome (> 41 points) (adjusted odds ratio 1.2 (95% CI 1.1 to 1.3)). The likelihood of one-year implant survival was greater for cemented implants (adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 1.35 (95% CI 1.01 to 1.71)), with higher revision rates for periprosthetic fractures of cementless implants. During two to three years’ follow-up, the likelihood of implant survival was non-significantly greater for cementless UKA (adjusted HR 0.64 (95% CI 0.40 to 1.04)), primarily due to increased revision rates for tibial loosening of cemented implants. Conclusion. Cementless and cemented medial UKA led to comparable improvement in physical function and pain reduction during the initial postoperative year, albeit with a greater likelihood of achieving excellent OKS outcomes after cementless UKA. Anticipated differences in early physical function and pain should not be a decisive factor in the choice of fixation technique. However, surgeons should consider the differences in short- and long-term implant survival when deciding which implant to use. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(5):401–410

Aims. The aim of this study was to assess factors associated with the estimated lifetime risk of revision surgery after primary knee arthroplasty (KA). Methods. All patients from the Scottish Arthroplasty Project dataset undergoing primary KA during the period 1 January 1998 to 31 December 2019 were included. The cumulative incidence function for revision and death was calculated up to 20 years. Adjusted analyses used cause-specific Cox regression modelling to determine the influence of patient factors. The lifetime risk was calculated as a percentage for patients aged between 45 and 99 years using multiple-decrement life table methodology. Results. The estimated lifetime risk of revision ranged between 32.7% (95% confidence interval (CI) 22.6 to 47.3) for patients aged 45 to 49 years and 0.6% (95% CI 0.1 to 4.5) for patients aged over 90 years. At 20 years, the overall cumulative incidence of revision (6.8% (95% CI 6.6 to 7.0)) was significantly less than that of death (66.3% (95% CI 65.4 to 67.1)). Adjusted analyses demonstrated converse effect of increasing age on risk of revision (hazard ratio (HR) 0.5 (95% CI 0.5 to 0.6)) and death (HR 3.6 (95% CI 3.4 to 3.7)). Male sex was associated with increased risks of revision (HR 1.1 (95% CI 1.1 to 1.2); p < 0.001) and death (HR 1.4 (95% CI 1.3 to 1.4); p < 0.001). Compared to patients undergoing primary KA for osteoarthritis, patients with inflammatory arthropathy had a higher risk of death (HR 1.7 (95% CI 1.7 to 1.8); p < 0.001), but were less likely to be revised (HR 0.9 (95% CI 0.7 to 1.0); p < 0.001). Patients with a greater number of comorbidities (HR 1.4 (95% CI 1.3 to 1.4)) and greater levels of socioeconomic deprivation (HR 1.4 (95% CI 1.4 to 1.5)) were at increased risk of death, but neither increased the risk of revision. Conclusion. The estimated lifetime risk of revision KA varied depending on patient sex, age, and underlying diagnosis. Patients aged between 45 and 49 years had a one in three risk of undergoing revision surgery within their lifetime, which decreased with age to one in 159 in those aged 90 years or more. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(12):1313–1322

Aims. The purpose of this study was to assess mid-term survivorship following primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) with Optetrak Logic components and identify the most common revision indications at a single institution. Methods. We identified a retrospective cohort of 7,941 Optetrak primary TKAs performed from January 2010 to December 2018. We reviewed the intraoperative findings of 369 TKAs that required revision TKA from January 2010 to December 2021 and the details of the revision implants used. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to determine survivorship. Cox regression analysis was used to examine the impact of patient variables and year of implantation on survival time. Results. The estimated survivorship free of all-cause revision was 98% (95% confidence interval (CI) 97% to 98%), 95% (95% CI 95% to 96%), and 86% (95% CI 83% to 88%) at two, five, and ten years, respectively. In 209/369 revisions there was a consistent constellation of findings with varying severity that included polyethylene wear and associated synovitis, osteolysis, and component loosening. This failure mode, which we refer to as aseptic mechanical failure, was the most common revision indication. The mean time from primary TKA to revision for aseptic mechanical failure was five years (5 months to 11 years). Conclusion. In this series of nearly 8,000 primary TKAs performed with a specific implant, we identified a lower-than-expected mid-term survivorship and a high number of revisions with a unique presentation. This study, along with the recent recall of the implant, confirms the need for frequent monitoring of patients with Optetrak TKAs given the incidence of polyethylene failure, osteolysis, and component loosening. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(3):277–283

Aims. The aim of this study is to compare the effectiveness and safety of thromboprophylactic treatments in patients undergoing primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Methods. Using nationwide medical registries, we identified patients with a primary TKA performed in Denmark between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2018 who received thromboprophylactic treatment. We examined the 90-day risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), major bleeding, and all-cause mortality following surgery. We used a Cox regression model to compute hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each outcome, pairwise comparing treatment with dalteparin or dabigatran with rivaroxaban as the reference. The HRs were both computed using a multivariable and a propensity score matched analysis. Results. We identified 27,736 primary TKA patients who received thromboprophylactic treatment (rivaroxaban (n = 18,846); dalteparin (n = 5,767); dabigatran (n = 1,443); tinzaparin (n = 1,372); and enoxaparin (n = 308)). In the adjusted multivariable analysis and compared with rivaroxaban, treatment with dalteparin (HR 0.68 (95% CI 0.49 to 0.92)) or dabigatran (HR 0.31 (95% CI 0.13 to 0.70)) was associated with a decreased risk of VTE. No statistically significant differences were observed for major bleeding or all-cause mortality. The propensity score matched analysis yielded similar results. Conclusion. Treatment with dalteparin or dabigatran was associated with a decreased 90-day risk of VTE following primary TKA surgery compared with treatment with rivaroxaban. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(10):1571–1577

Aims. Uncemented mobile bearing designs in medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) have seen an increase over the last decade. However, there are a lack of large-scale studies comparing survivorship of these specific designs to commonly used cemented mobile and fixed bearing designs. The aim of this study was to evaluate the survivorship of these designs. Methods. A total of 21,610 medial UKAs from 2007 to 2018 were selected from the Dutch Arthroplasty Register. Multivariate Cox regression analyses were used to compare uncemented mobile bearings with cemented mobile and fixed bearings. Adjustments were made for patient and surgical factors, with their interactions being considered. Reasons and type of revision in the first two years after surgery were assessed. Results. In hospitals performing less than 100 cases per year, cemented mobile bearings reported comparable adjusted risks of revision as uncemented mobile bearings. However, in hospitals performing more than 100 cases per year, the adjusted risk of revision was higher for cemented mobile bearings compared to uncemented mobile bearings (hazard ratio 1.78 (95% confidence interval 1.34 to 2.35)). The adjusted risk of revision between cemented fixed bearing and uncemented mobile bearing was comparable, independent of annual hospital volume. In addition, 12.3% of uncemented mobile bearing, 20.3% of cemented mobile bearing, and 41.5% of uncemented fixed bearing revisions were for tibial component loosening. The figures for instability were 23.6%, 14.5% and 11.7%, respectively, and for periprosthetic fractures were 10.0%, 2.8%, and 3.5%. Bearing exchange was the type of revision in 40% of uncemented mobile bearing, 24.3% of cemented mobile bearing, and 5.3% cemented fixed bearing revisions. Conclusion. The findings of this study demonstrated improved survival with use of uncemented compared to cemented mobile bearings in medial UKA, only in those hospitals performing more than 100 cases per year. Cemented fixed bearings reported comparable survival results as uncemented mobile bearings, regardless of the annual hospital volume. The high rates of instability, periprosthetic fractures, and bearing exchange in uncemented mobile bearings emphasize the need for further research. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(7):1261–1269

Aims. Knee osteonecrosis in advanced stages may lead to joint degeneration. Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) for osteonecrosis has traditionally been associated with suboptimal results. We analyzed outcomes of contemporary TKAs for osteonecrosis, with particular emphasis on: survivorship free from aseptic loosening, any revision, and any reoperation plus the clinical outcomes, complications, and radiological results. Patients and Methods. In total, 156 patients undergoing 167 primary TKAs performed for osteonecrosis between 2004 and 2014 at a single institution were reviewed. The mean age at index TKA was 61 years (14 to 93) and the mean body mass index (BMI) was 30 kg/m. 2. (18 to 51) The mean follow-up was six years (2 to 12). A total of 110 TKAs (66%) were performed for primary osteonecrosis and 57 TKAs (34%) for secondary osteonecrosis. Overall, 15 TKAs (9%) had tibial stems, while 12 TKAs (7%) had femoral stems. Posterior-stabilized designs were used in 147 TKAs (88%) of TKAs. Bivariate Cox regression analysis was conducted to identify risk factors for revision and reoperation. Results. Survivorship free from aseptic loosening, any revision, and any reoperation at ten years was 97% (95% confidence interval (CI) 93 to 100), 93% (95% CI 85 to 100), and 82% (95% CI 69 to 93), respectively. No factors, including age, sex, BMI, primary versus secondary osteonecrosis, stem utilization, and constraint, were identified as risk factors for reoperation. Four TKAs (2%) underwent revision, most commonly for tibial aseptic loosening (n = 2). Excluding revisions and reoperations, there was a total of 11 complications (7%), with the most common being a manipulation under anaesthesia (six TKAs, 4%). Mean Knee Society Scores (Knee component) significantly improved from 57 (32 to 87) preoperatively to 91 (49 to 100) postoperatively (p < 0.001). No unrevised TKAs had complete radiolucent lines or radiological evidence of loosening. Conclusion. Contemporary cemented TKAs with selective stem utilization for osteonecrosis resulted in durable survivorship, a low complication rate, and reliable improvement in clinical outcomes. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:1356–1361

Introduction. Unexpected cancellation of scheduled total joint arthroplasty (TJA) procedures create patient distress and are disruptive to the clinical team. The purpose of this study was to identify the etiology of cancellation for scheduled TJA and to determine the subsequent fate of those patients. Methods. A consecutive series of 11670 primary THA and TKA patients at a single institution was reviewed from January 2013 through March 2017. All patients who were scheduled for a primary THA or TKA and subsequently cancelled were identified. The etiology of cancellation and time to rescheduling were recorded. Univariate analysis and cox regression models were performed. Results. 505 (4.3%) of the 11,670 scheduled patients had their surgery cancelled. 209 (42%) were due to medical reasons and 173 (34%) were secondary to patient preference. 391 patients (77%) eventually underwent their procedure at a mean delay of 165 days (19 –1908 days). The most common medical reasons for cancellation included cardiac disease (n=44, 21%), hyperglycemia (n=32, 15%) and dental infections (n=24, 11%). Only 53 (25%) patients cancelled for a medical reason underwent further diagnostic or therapeutic intervention for their medical condition. When compared to patient driven cancellations, those cancelled for medical reasons had a higher mean CCI (0.82 vs. 0.39, p<0.001), were cancelled closer to the scheduled surgery date (8.55 vs 18.1 days, p<0.001), had similar time periods between cancellation and rescheduling (159 vs 177 days, p=0.445) and were more likely to eventually undergo surgery (86% vs. 73%, p=0.004). Conclusion. TJA surgeries are most often cancelled due to a medical concern. Yet, only a minority of these patients undergo intervention for that medical condition. Cancelled patients have their surgery delayed, on average, over 5 months. To minimize the risk of cancellation, healthcare providers should consider early referral of medically complex patients to the patient's primary care physician

Aims

We have previously reported the mid-term outcomes of revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) for flexion instability. At a mean of four years, there were no re-revisions for instability. The aim of this study was to report the implant survivorship and clinical and radiological outcomes of the same cohort of of patients at a mean follow-up of ten years.

Aims

Knowledge on total knee arthroplasties (TKAs) in patients with a history of poliomyelitis is limited. This study compared implant survivorship and clinical outcomes among affected and unaffected limbs in patients with sequelae of poliomyelitis undergoing TKAs.

Aims

The aims were to assess whether joint-specific outcome after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) was influenced by implant design over a 12-year follow-up period, and whether patient-related factors were associated with loss to follow-up and mortality risk.

Introduction. Unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) offers advantages over total knee replacement but has higher revision rates particularly for aseptic loosening. Cementless UKR was introduced in an attempt to address this. We used National Joint Registry (NJR) data to compare the 10-year results of cemented and cementless mobile bearing UKR whilst matching for important patient, implant and surgical factors. We also explored the influence of caseload on outcome. Methods. We performed a retrospective observational study using NJR data on 30,814 cemented and 9,708 cementless mobile bearing UKR implanted between 2004 and 2016. Logistic regression was utilised to calculate propensity scores allowing for matching of cemented and cementless groups for various patient, implant and surgical confounders, including surgeon's caseload, using a one to one ratio. 14,814 UKRs (7407 cemented and 7407 cementless) were propensity score matched. Outcomes studied were revision, defined as removal, addition or exchange of a component, and reasons for revision. Implant survival was compared using Cox regression models and groups were stratified according to surgeon caseload. Results. Based on raw unmatched data the 10 year survival for cementless and cemented UKR were 89% (95% CI 88%–90%) and 93% (CI 90%–96%), with cementless having a lower revision rate (Hazard ratio (HR)=0.59 (CI 0.52–0.68, p<0.001). However, there were differences between the cohorts in many potential confounding factors particularly surgeons caseload: Surgeons using cementless had a higher caseloads than those using cemented and for both cohorts the revision rate decreased with increasing caseload. Following matching, all potential confounders were well balanced and the 10-year survival for cementless and cemented were 90% (CI 88%–92%) and 93% (95% CI 90–96%) with cementless having a lower revision rate (HR 0.76; CI 0.64–0.91; p=0.003). This was due to rate of revision for aseptic loosening more than halving (p<0.001) in the cementless (n=31, 0.4%) compared to cemented (n=74, 1.0%) and the rate of revision for pain decreasing (p=0.03) in the cementless (n=34, 0.5%) compared to the cemented (n=55, 0.7%). However, the rate of peri-prosthetic fracture increased significantly (p=0.01) in the cementless (n=19, 0.3%) compared to the cemented (n=7, 0.1%). Following matching the decrease in revision rate with the cementless was similar for low (<10 cases/year; HR 0.74), medium (10–30 cases/year; HR 0.79) and high (>10 cases/year; HR 0.79) caseload surgeons. The 10- year survival for cementless and cemented were for low caseload 87% & 82%, medium caseload 94% & 92% and high caseload 98% & 94% respectively. Conclusions. This is the first study to compare the 10-year survival of the cementless and cemented mobile bearing UKR. We have demonstrated that the cementless device has a 24% reduced risk of revision and that this was independent of surgeon caseload and other important patient, surgical and implant confounders. This improvement was due to the rate of revision for aseptic loosening and pain halving. However, there was a small increase in rate of periprosthetic fracture. The results of both cemented and cementless UKR improved with increasing surgeon caseload. Low volume surgeons have poor results with both cemented and cementless UKR so should consider either stopping doing UKR or doing more. Medium and high volume surgeons should consider using the cementless. High volume surgeons using the cementless had particularly good results with a 10-year survival of 98%. For figures, tables, or references, please contact authors directly

Aims

Spinal anaesthesia has seen increased use in contemporary primary total knee arthroplasties (TKAs). However, controversy exists about the benefits of spinal in comparison to general anaesthesia in primary TKAs. This study aimed to investigate the pain control, length of stay (LOS), and complications associated with spinal versus general anaesthesia in primary TKAs from a single, high-volume academic centre.

Aims

The aim of this study was to identify variables associated with time to revision, demographic details associated with revision indication, and type of prosthesis employed, and to describe the survival of hinge knee arthroplasty (HKA) when used for first-time knee revision surgery and factors that were associated with re-revision.

Aims

This study aims to determine the rate of and risk factors for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) after operative management of tibial plateau fractures (TPFs) in older adults.

Introduction. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) offers significant advantages over total knee arthroplasty (TKA) but is reported to have higher revision rates in joint registries. In both the New Zealand and the UK national registry the revision rate of cementless UKR is less than cementless. It is not clear whether this is because the cementless is better or because more experienced surgeons, who tend to get better results are using cementless. We aim to use registry data to compare cemented and cementless UKA outcomes, matching for surgical experience and other factors. Methods. We performed a retrospective observational study using National Joint Registry (NJR) data on 10,836 propensity matched Oxford UKAs (5418 cemented and 5418 cementless) between 2004 and 2015. Logistic regression was utilized to calculate propensity scores to match the cemented and cementless groups for multiple confounders using a one to one ratio. Standardised mean differences were used before and after matching to assess for any covariate imbalances. The outcomes studied were implant survival, reasons for revision and patient survival. The endpoint for implant survival was revision surgery (any component removal or exchange). Cumulative patient and implant survival rates were determined using the Kaplan-Meier method. Patients not undergoing revision or death were censored on the study end date. The study endpoints implant and patient survival were compared between cemented and cementless groups using Cox regression models with a robust variance estimator. Results. The 5-year implant survival for cemented and cementless Oxford UKA were 95.4% (95%CI 94.6–96.1%) and 96.5% (95%CI 95.8–97.1%) respectively. Implant revision rates were significantly lower in cementless Oxford UKA than cemented, HR 0.8 (CI 0.64–0.99); (p=0.04). The most common reasons for revision in the cemented Oxford UKA group were aseptic loosening (n=44, 0.8%), pain (n=37, 0.7%) and osteoarthritis progression (n=37, 0.7%) compared with osteoarthritis progression (n=28, 0.5%), pain (n=24, 0.4%), aseptic loosening (n=23,0.4%) in the cementless group. Patient survival 5-year survival rates for cemented and cementless Oxford UKA were 96.1% (95%CI 95.2–96.9) and 96.3% (95%CI 95.4–97.1) respectively and were not significantly different HR 0.91 (95%CI 0.71–1.15); (p = 0.42). Conclusion. This is the first study comparing the outcomes of the cemented and cementless UKA from the largest arthroplasty register in the world. Our work shows the cementless Oxford UKA has superior implant survivorship to the cemented implant at 5 years follow up. Cementless implants also had half the risk of requiring revision for aseptic loosening, which may be related to the decreased incidence of tibial radiolucent lines with cementless fixation. Patient survival did not significantly differ between the implant types

Aims

Debate continues regarding the optimum management of periprosthetic distal femoral fractures (PDFFs). This study aims to determine which operative treatment is associated with the lowest perioperative morbidity and mortality when treating low (Su type II and III) PDFFs comparing lateral locking plate fixation (LLP-ORIF) or distal femoral arthroplasty (DFA).

Aims

This study aimed to determine outcomes of isolated tibial insert exchange (ITIE) during revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA).

Aims

There is little information regarding the risk of a patient developing prosthetic joint infection (PJI) after primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) when the patient has previously experienced PJI of a TKA or total hip arthroplasty (THA) in another joint. The goal of this study was to compare the risk of PJI of primary TKA in this patient population against matched controls.

Aims

The aim of this study was to report the outcome of femoral condylar fresh osteochondral allografts (FOCA) with concomitant realignment osteotomy with a focus on graft survivorship, complications, reoperation, and function.

Aims

There is little literature about total knee arthroplasty (TKA) after distal femoral osteotomy (DFO). Consequently, the purpose of this study was to analyze the outcomes of TKA after DFO, with particular emphasis on: survivorship free from aseptic loosening, revision, or any re-operation; complications; radiological results; and clinical outcome.