Source of the study: University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is effective for patients with isolated compartment osteoarthritis, however the procedure has higher revision rates. Long-term survivorship and accurate characterisation of revision reasons are limited by a lack of long-term data and standardised revision definitions. We aimed to identify survivorship, risk factors and revision reasons in a large UKA cohort with up to 20 years follow-up. Patient, implant and revision details were recorded through clinical and radiological review for 2,137 consecutive patients undergoing primary medial UKA across Auckland, Canterbury, Counties Manukau and Waitematā DHB between 2000 and 2017. Revision reasons were determined from review of clinical, laboratory, and radiological records for each patient using a standardised protocol. To ensure complete follow-up data was cross-referenced with the New Zealand Joint Registry to identify patients undergoing subsequent revision outside the hospitals.
[Background]. Bipolar hemiarthroplasty (following BHA) have historically had poor results in patients with idiopathic osteonecrosis of femoral head (OFNH). However, most recent report have shown excellent results with new generation BHA designs that incorporate advances in bearing technology. These optimal outcomes with bipolar hemiarthroplasty will be more attractive procedure for young patients who need bone stock for future total arthroplasty. The purpose of the current study was to evaluate the clinical and radiographic finding of this procedure for the treatment of OFNH at our institution after 7-to 21years follow-up. [Subjects and Methods]. We retrospectively reviewed a consecutive series of 29 patients (40 hips) who underwent primary bipolar hemiarthroplasty for ION (36 hips with stage III and 4 hips with stage IV) with a cementless femoral component between 1992 and 2006. Osteonecrosis was associated with corticosteroid use (23 patients), alcohol (16 patients), idiopathic (one patients). The mean follow-up duration was approximately 12 (range 7 to 21) years. Patients were evaluated according to the Japan Orthopaedic Association (JOA) hip score. We evaluate osteolysis and bone response of acetabulum or femur, and migration distance of outer head were calculated at the latest follow-up. Kaplan-Meier survivorship rate was investigated to examine implant failure rate. [Results]. The average the Japan Orthopedic Association (JOA) hip score significantly improved from 53.9±16.0 points (preoperative) to 89.6±8.0 points (final follow-up). At the time of the final follow-up, one patients (one hips) had undergone revision to total hip arthroplasty because of groin pain without mechanical failure and migration. The rate of
Introduction. We aim to assess the functional outcome, patient perceived satisfaction and implant survival at a mean follow up of 13[10–16] years following revision knee replacement. Patients and Methods. Between 1995 and 2001, 243 revision knee replacements were performed in 230 patients using Endolink [Link, Hamburg] or TC3 [Depuy, Leeds] prosthesis at Wrightington hospital, Wrightington, were consented to take part in this study. Data was collected prospectively which includes complications and functional assessment by Oxford knee score, WOMAC, HSS, UCLA, SF12 scores, and patient satisfaction questioner. The scores were obtained pre-operatively and post-operatively at 1 year, 5 years and at the latest follow-up. The mean age was 69 yrs, 51% were males, TC3 prosthesis as used in 175 and Endolink in 68, the revision was for Infection in 71[29%], 53 patients had intra-operative positive culture, 35 had 2 stage revision. Results. At a mean follow up of 13 years [10–16] the survival of revision knee replacement in our patient group is 86%. Further surgery was performed in 35[14%], which includes 5 patients who had above knee amputation. The re-revision rate in the non-infected group [13%] was significantly lower compared to the re-revision in infected group [18%]. The Oxford scores improved at 1 year which continued to improve up to 5 years following which there was a gradual deterioration in the scores. There was no significant improvement in the generic HSQ, SF12 and UCLA scores following surgery. The functional scores improved to a lesser extent in patients with proven infection. Discussion and Conclusion. At a mean follow up of 13 years the
Introduction. We aim to assess the functional outcome, patient satisfaction and implant survival at a mean follow up of 13[10–16] years following revision for infected total knee replacement. Patients and Methods. Between 1995 and 2001, 71 revision knee replacements were performed for infection, at Wrightington hospital, Wrightington. Data was collected prospectively which includes intra-operative cultures, complications and functional assessment by Oxford knee score, WOMAC, HSS, UCLA, SF12 scores, and patient satisfaction questioner. The scores were obtained pre-operatively and post-operatively at 1 year, 5 years and at the latest follow-up. Mean age was 69 yrs, 70% were Females, 31[44%] had 2 stage revisions and intra-operative culture was positive in 53 patients. Most common organism was staphylococcus aureus in 30% and staphylococcus epidermides in 18%. Results. At a mean follow up of 13[10–16] years, the survival of revision knee replacement for infection in our patient group is 82%. 4 patients had above knee amputation 4 had conversion to Pseudo, 1 had Arthrodesis, further revisions in 4 patients 2 for wear and 2 for loosening. Two patients have chronic infection and are on long term suppressive antibiotics. The Oxford scores improved at 1 year which continued to improve up to 5 years following which there was a gradual deterioration in the scores. There was no significant improvement in the generic HSQ, SF12 and UCLA scores following surgery. There was a significant improvement in HSS scores, Oxford scores and patient satisfaction following surgery. There was no difference in functional outcome between the single stage revision and 2 stage revision group. Discussion and Conclusion. In our study group the
