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. Methods. Incidence of revision and mortality for all primary UKAs performed from 1999 to 2019 (n = 13,481) was obtained from the New Zealand Joint Registry (NZJR). Lifetime risk of revision was calculated for patients and stratified by age, sex, and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade. Results. The lifetime risk of revision was highest in the youngest age group (46 to 50 years; 40.4%) and decreased sequentially to the oldest (86 to 90 years; 3.7%). Across all age groups, lifetime risk of revision was higher for females (ranging from 4.3% to 43.4% vs males 2.9% to 37.4%) and patients with a higher ASA grade (ASA 3 to 4, ranging from 8.8% to 41.2% vs ASA 1 1.8% to 29.8%). The lifetime risk of revision for UKA was double that of TKA across all age groups (ranging from 3.7% to 40.4% for UKA, and 1.6% to 22.4% for TKA). The higher risk of revision in younger patients was associated with aseptic loosening in both sexes and pain in females. Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) accounted for 4% of all UKA revisions, in contrast with 27% for TKA; the risk of PJI was higher for males than females for both procedures. Conclusion. Lifetime risk of revision may be a more meaningful measure of arthroplasty outcomes than implant survival at defined time periods. This study highlights the higher lifetime risk of UKA revision for younger patients, females, and those with a higher ASA grade, which can aid with patient counselling prior to UKA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(6):672–679

Aims

Robotic arm-assisted surgery offers accurate and reproducible guidance in component positioning and assessment of soft-tissue tensioning during knee arthroplasty, but the feasibility and early outcomes when using this technology for revision surgery remain unknown. The objective of this study was to compare the outcomes of robotic arm-assisted revision of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) to total knee arthroplasty (TKA) versus primary robotic arm-assisted TKA at short-term follow-up.

Aim. To assess the survival of revision knee replacements at our institution and to identify prognostic factors that predict failure in revision knee surgery. Materials and methods. This was a retrospective review of 52 patients who had undergone revision knee surgery as identified by hospital clinical coding. Patient demographics, physiological parameters, reason for revision, type of revision implant and last date of follow up were recorded from the medical records. Implant survival was analysed both from the index primary procedure to revision and from definitive reconstruction at revision to re-operation for any cause. Results. The median time from index primary to first revision was 1428 days (331-5000). A P value of 0.05 was set as the significance level. Patients with a diagnosis of inflammatory arthropathy had a significantly shorter time to revision compared to those with osteoarthritis. Time to revision was not significantly different for those being revised for infection and those not infected. Following reconstruction, there was no significant difference in the reoperation rates for infected vs non-infected implants. The 5-year implant survival for all revision knee replacements with re-operation for any cause as the end point was 72.2% (95%CI 52.3-87.9). At 5 years there was no significant difference in implant survival of infected and non-infected revisions. Conclusion. The implant survival of revision knee replacements for all causes in our institute was 72.2% at 5 years. There was no significant difference in 5-year survival between infected and non-infected revisions. Patients with an inflammatory arthropathy had a significantly shorter time to revision compared to those with osteoarthritis

Aims

Metaphyseal cones with cemented stems are frequently used in revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA). However, if the diaphysis has been previously violated, the resultant sclerotic canal can impair cemented stem fixation, which is vital for bone ingrowth into the cone, and long-term fixation. We report the outcomes of our solution to this problem, in which impaction grafting and a cemented stem in the diaphysis is combined with an uncemented metaphyseal cone, for revision TKA in patients with severely compromised bone.

Correct positioning and alignment of components during primary total knee replacement (TKR) is widely accepted to be an important predictor of patient satisfaction and implant durability. This retrospective study reports the effect of the post-operative mechanical axis of the lower limb in the coronal plane on implant survival following primary TKR.

A total of 501 TKRs in 396 patients were divided into an aligned group with a neutral mechanical axis (± 3°) and a malaligned group where the mechanical axis deviated from neutral by > 3°. At 15 years’ follow-up, 33 of 458 (7.2%) TKRs were revised for aseptic loosening. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis showed a weak tendency towards improved survival with restoration of a neutral mechanical axis, but this did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.47).

We found that the relationship between survival of a primary TKR and mechanical axis alignment is weaker than that described in a number of previous reports.