Aims. The mean age of patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has reduced with time. Younger patients have increased expectations following TKA. Aseptic loosening of the tibial component is the most common cause of failure of TKA in the UK. Interest in cementless TKA has re-emerged due to its encouraging results in the younger patient population. We review a large series of tantalum trabecular metal cementless implants in patients who are at the highest risk of revision surgery. Methods. A total of 454 consecutive patients who underwent cementless TKA between August 2004 and December 2021 were reviewed. The mean follow-up was ten years. Plain radiographs were analyzed for radiolucent lines. Patients who underwent revision TKA were recorded, and the cause for revision was determined. Data from the National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Island, the Isle of Man and the States of Guernsey (NJR) were compared with our series. Results. No patients in our series had evidence of radiolucent lines on their latest radiological assessment. Only eight patients out of 454 required revision arthroplasty, and none of these revisions were indicated for aseptic loosening of the tibial baseplate. When compared to data from the NJR annual report, Kaplan-Meier estimates from our series (2.94 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.24 to 5.87)) show a significant reduction in cumulative estimates of revision compared to all cemented (4.82 (95% CI 4.69 to 4.96)) or cementless TKA (5.65 (95% CI 5.23 to 6.10)). Our data (2.94 (95% CI 1.24 to 5.87)) also show lower cumulative revision rates compared to the most popular implant (PFC Sigma Cemented Knee implant fixation, 4.03 (95% CI 3.75 to 4.33)). The prosthesis time revision rate (PTIR) estimates for our series (2.07 (95% CI 0.95 to 3.83)) were lower than those of cemented cases (4.53 (95% CI 4.49 to 4.57)) from NJR. Conclusion. The NexGen trabecular (tantalum) cementless implant has lower revision rates in our series compared to all cemented implants and other types of cementless implants, and its use in younger patients should be encouraged. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(4):277–285

Abstract. Introduction. The UK National Joint Registry(NJR) has not reported total knee replacement (TKR)survivorship based on design philosophy alone, unlike its international counterparts. We report outcomes of implant survivorship based on design philosophy using data from NJR's 2020 annual report. Methodology. All TKR implants with an identifiable design philosophy from NJR data were included. Cumulative revision data for cruciate-retaining(CR), posterior stabilised(PS), mobile-bearing(MB) design philosophies was derived from merged NJR data. Cumulative revision data for individual brands of implants with the medial pivot(MP) philosophy were used to calculate overall survivorship for this design philosophy. The all-cause revision was used as the endpoint and calculated to 15 years follow-up with Kaplan-Meier curves. Results. 1,144,384 TKRs were included. CR is the most popular design philosophy(67.4%), followed by PS(23.1%), MB(6.9%), and least commonly MP(2.6%). MP and CR implants showed the best survivorship(95.7% and 95.6% respectively) at 15 years which is statistically significant at, and beyond, 10 years. Observed survivorship was lower at all time points with the PS and MB implants(94.5% for both designs at 15 years). Conclusions. While all design philosophies considered in this study survive well, CR and MP designs offer statistically superior survivorship at and beyond 10 years. MP design performs better than CR beyond 13 years yet, remains the least popular design philosophy used. Publishing data based on knee arthroplasty design philosophy would help surgeons when making decisions on implant choice

Abstract. Introduction. The role of patellar resurfacing in total knee arthroplasty remains controversial. We questioned the effect of patellar resurfacing on the early and late revision rates after total knee arthroplasty. Materials and Methods. We analysed the data of cumulative revisions of primary knee replacement from the NJR 19th Annual Report. NJR included secondary patellar resurfacing as a revision. We compared differences in the 3-year and 15-year revision rates between the patellar resurfacing and non-resurfacing for the different combinations of total knee replacements using a paired t-test. We performed subgroup analysis for the five combinations with the highest volumes. Results. Twenty-seven implant combinations had the 15-year revision rates reported. Patellar resurfacing group had lower mean 3-year revision rate of 1.68 (SD 0.7) compared to 2.02 (SD 0.9) in non-resurfacing group (p=0.05). However, 15-year revision rate was similar between the two groups (mean 5.7, SD 2.1 vs. mean 5.7, SD 2.2; p = 0.46). High volume implants showed that two combinations (NexGen CR and PS) had similar revision rates at 3 and 15 years between resurfacing and non-resurfacing groups. Three combinations (PFC Sigma CR and PS and Genesis 2 CR) had higher revision rate in non-resurfacing group at 3 years (p=0.01) and the difference persisted at 15 years (p=0.05). Conclusions. Although revision rate in total knee arthroplasty was higher without patellar resurfacing at 3 years, at 15 years the difference was not significant. However, the higher revision without patellar resurfacing can be prosthetic combination specific which surgeons need to be aware of

Abstract. Multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings in orthopaedic surgery are evolving. The goals include patient optimisation, surgical planning and discharge arrangements, individually on a patient specific basis. In line with British Association Surgery of the Knee and GIRFT guidelines, we report our regional experience on the implementation and evolution of our regional Revision Knee Arthroplasty MDT. We undertook a retrospective review of the process, cases discussed and quality assurance conducted in the weekly MDT. Since implementation of the MDT meeting in January 2019, 550 patients with painful joint replacements have been discussed. In May 2021, we formalised our ‘terms of reference’ and ‘standard operating procedures’ which are adhered to by the consultants operating within the network, all of whom attend the meeting. A proforma has been developed and is completed for all cases capturing all pertinent information. All cases are graded according to R1, R2, or R3 complexity scale. Since its inception, the MDT has looked at all post-operative imaging, we now describe a new classification system for grading the appearances. Confirmation of the pre-operative plan and actual surgical intervention is reviewed and audited. In addition, confirmation of indication of revision at the time of operation is reviewed and validated for accuracy with benefits to the unit, individual surgeon and the NJR. In conclusion, the implementation of the revision MDT facilitating pre-operative revision arthroplasty discussion and post-operative quality assurance processes enable surgeons to educate, reflect on their practice and ensure that the highest standards of care are being provided

Abstract. Introduction. Isolated patellofemoral osteoarthritis accounts for 10% of knee osteoarthritis. Many of these will not require arthroplasty solutions, but for those who are sufficiently symptomatic, patellofemoral joint (PFJ) replacement has been shown to be an effective procedure. The National Joint Registry (NJR) has shown a higher revision rate for this operation, particularly in younger patients (males <55 years 13.3% failure at 5 years, females 9.6%). The aim of this study is to report on the medium-term outcome of the Avon patellofemoral joint arthroplasty in patients under 55 from a non-design centre. There is no other published case series on this young patient cohort. Methodology. 50 Avon PFJ replacements (Stryker, Kalamazoo USA) were undertaken in 46 patients under 55 years old (range 35 – 54, mean 48.8) between 2010 and 2022 for end-stage isolated PFJ arthritis shown on Xray and MRI scan. The outcome measure was all-cause revision rate. This was assessed by review of clinical notes, imaging and NJR data. Results. The mean follow up was 5.8 years (range 6 months to 12.9 years). Only one patient had a revision procedure (for progressive osteoarthritis) which was 3 years after the primary procedure. This patient has had no further surgery. The implant survival rate was 97.2% at 5 years and 97.2% at 10 years. Conclusion. This study shows that patellofemoral joint replacement with the Avon prosthesis can give a satisfactory revision rate in the medium term in patients under 55 if carefully selected

Abstract. Introduction. In revision knee arthroplasty, rotating hinge implants (RHK) have been considered to result in higher complication rates and lower survivorship when compared to constrained condylar implants (CCK). The aims of this study were to compare patient reported outcome measures (PROMs), complication rates and survivorship of RHK and CCK used in revision arthroplasty at a single, high volume elective orthopaedic centre with previously validated bespoke database. Methodology. One hundred and eight patients who underwent revision knee arthroplasty with either CCK or RHK and matched our inclusion criteria were identified. EQ5D, Health State and Oxford Knee Scores were collected pre-operatively and at 1 year post-operatively. Complication data was collected at 6 weeks, 6 months, 1 year and 2 years post-operatively. NJR data was interrogated, in addition to our own database, to investigate implant survival. Results. There was no statistically significant difference between RHK and CCK in implant survival at two to twelve years of follow up. In addition, we observed no statistically significant difference in the PROMs scores and complication rates of the two implants. Conclusion. This study shows that both the RHK and CCK remain viable options in revision arthroplasty, the implant survival and complication rate were comparable. We recommend prospective randomised control trials with long-term follow up to further investigate the use of CCK and RHK implants in revision knee arthroplasty

Abstract. Background. Since 2012 we have routinely used the cementless Oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (mUKA), with microplasty instrumentation, in patients with anteromedial osteoarthritis (AMOA) meeting modern indications. We report the 10-year survival of 1000 mUKA with minimum 4-year follow-up. Methods. National Joint Registry (NJR) surgeon reports were interrogated for each senior author to identify the first 1,000 mUKAs performed for osteoarthritis. A minimum of 4 years follow-up was required. There was no loss to follow-up. The NJR status of each knee was established. For each mUKA revision the indication and mechanism of failure was determined using local patient records. The 10-year implant survival was calculated using life-table analysis. Results. The 1,000 mUKA cohort represented 55% of all primary knee replacements in the period, with an average age of 67.7 years and a 54%/46% male/female split. There were 17 revisions (11 for arthritis progression, 4 infections, 1 dislocation and 1 aseptic loosening). The 10-year survival was 98% (44 at risk in 10th year). One patient sustained a periprosthetic fracture at 3 weeks, treated with buttress plate fixation. Discussion. This is the first detailed series reporting the long-term outcome of the cementless Oxford mUKA implanted using microplasty instrumentation. There was a low failure rate, with only one revision for aseptic loosening. Lateral progression was the commonest cause for revision, with an incidence of 1%. This report provides evidence that the combination of evidence-based indications, well-designed instrumentation and cementless fixation can provide excellent long-term survival for the Oxford mUKA in treating AMOA

Abstract. Aim. End-stage arthropathy is a well-known complication of haemophilia, with recurrent haemarthroses leading to joint destruction, deformity, pain, and stiffness. In the knee, this is often treated with total knee arthroplasty (TKA), which can be more challenging in patients with haemophilia (PwH) and associated with poorer outcomes. We conducted a systematic literature review and meta-analysis to determine implant survivorship, functional outcomes and complication rates. Method. A systematic review was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PubMed for studies reporting TKA outcomes with Kaplan-Meier survivorship in PwH (PROSPERO registered). Meta-analysis was performed for survivorship and outcomes, and the results were compared to outcomes from the National Joint Registry (NJR). Results. 19 studies, totalling 1187 TKAs (average age 39 years) were reviewed. In PwH, implant survivorship at 5, 10, and 15 years was 94%, 86%, and 76% respectively, whereas NJR reported survivorship for males <55 years was 94%, 90%, and 86%. Survivorship generally improved over the time period studied (1973–2017), but was inversely correlated with HIV infection (common in PwH). Range of motion improved by 10–20° post-operatively, and there were large improvements in Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMS). The prosthetic joint infection rate (PJI) was 6% compared to 0.5-1% in non-PwH, but the reporting of other complications, especially haematological, was inconsistent. Conclusions. TKA in PwH has similar 5-year survivorship to non-PwH, but a six-fold higher infection rate. There were marked improvements in range of motion and PROMS, but complications were poorly reported. There remains a need for larger, long-term studies with standardised reporting

Purpose. To establish the reliability of reporting and recording revision hip and knee arthroplasties by comparing data in the National Joint Registry (NJR), Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) and our local theatre records. Methods. The paper theatre registers for all orthopaedic theatres in the Royal Derby Hospitals NHS Trust were examined for details of revision hip and knee replacements carried out in 2007 and 2008. This was then cross-checked and merged with the local electronic theatre data to obtain a definitive local record of all revision hip and knee arthroplasties. Data for the same period was requested from the NJR and HES and these data were checked against our definitive local record for discrepancies. The HES codes used were the same codes used to compile the recent NJR annual reports. Results. The theatre registers and ORMIS identified 271 revision hip and knee arthroplasties in the study period. The NJR had corresponding data for 176 (65%) of these, and HES had 250 (92%). 10 cases (4%) were not recorded by either NJR or HES: 8 secondary resurfacings of patellae and 2 posterior lip augmentations in hips. Of those operations “missed” by HES, most had been assigned a correct “W” code, but had a “Y” or “Z” OPCS code not used in the NJR annual reports. Conclusion. When HES and the NJR data are combined, they are an accurate representation of real practice. More robust methods of reporting revision arthroplasty to the NJR are required. The OPCS codes used to indicate a revision need to be reviewed

Orthopaedic practice is increasingly guided by conclusions drawn from analysis of Joint Registry Data. Analysis of the England and Wales National Joint Registry (NJR) led Sibanda et al to conclude that UKR should be reserved for more elderly patients due to higher revision rates in younger patients. To determine our UKR revision rates at the Great Western Hospital we requested knee arthroplasty data from the NJR, Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data submitted by our centre to the Primary Care Trust, and interrogated our internal theatre implant database. This revealed significant discrepancies between different data sources. We collected data from each source for 2005, 2006, and 2007. Operations were classified as TKR, UKR, Other or Unspecified. Results are illustrated in the attached table:. Key findings:. Our theatre implant database appears most accurate and includes a greater number of joint replacement operations than NJR or HES data and fewer ‘unspecified’ procedures. On average 15% NJR, 0% HES and 0.3% theatre data procedures were ‘unspecified’. NJR data comprises an average 17 fewer, and HES data an average 36 fewer procedures each year compared with our theatre data. Up to 80% UKRs performed are recorded as TKR in HES data. In summary there is significant inaccuracy in our NJR data which may affect the validity of conclusions drawn from NJR data analysis. HES data is even less accurate with implications for hospital funding. We strongly advise other centres to continue to maintain accurate implant data and to perform a similar audit to calculate error rates for NJR and HES data. Further analysis is required to identify at which stage of data collection inaccuracies occur so that solutions can be devised. We are currently analysing data from 2008 and 2009

Objectives. This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to determine the mid- to long-term clinical outcomes for a medial-pivot total knee replacement (TKR) system. The objectives were to synthesise available survivorship, Knee Society Scores (KSS), and reasons for revision for this system. Methods. A systematic search was conducted of two online databases to identify sources of survivorship, KSS, and reasons for revision. Survivorship results were compared with values in the National Joint Registry of England, Wales, and Northern Ireland (NJR). Results. A total of eight studies that included data for 1146 TKRs performed in six countries satisfied the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Pooled component survivorship estimates were 99.2% (95% CI, 97.7 to 99.7) and 97.6% (95% CI, 95.8 to 98.6) at five and eight years, respectively. Survivorship was similar or better when compared with rates reported for all cemented TKRs combined in the NJR and was significantly better than some insert types at mid-term intervals. The weighted mean post-operative KSS was 87.9 (73.2 to 94.2), in the excellent range. Similar cumulative revision rates and KSS were reported at centres in the United States, Europe, and Asia. Conclusions. The subject system was associated with survivorship and KSS similar or better than that reported for other TKR systems. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2014;3:297–304

Whether to use total or unicompartmental knee replacement (TKA/UKA) for end-stage knee osteoarthritis remains controversial. Although UKA results in a faster recovery, lower rates of morbidity and mortality and fewer complications, the long-term revision rate is substantially higher than that for TKA. The effect of each intervention on patient-reported outcome remains unclear. The aim of this study was to determine whether six-month patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are better in patients after TKA or UKA, using data from a large national joint registry (NJR). We carried out a propensity score-matched cohort study which compared six-month PROMs after TKA and UKA in patients enrolled in the NJR for England and Wales, and the English national PROM collection programme. A total of 3519 UKA patients were matched to 10 557 TKAs. . The mean six-month PROMs favoured UKA: the Oxford Knee Score was 37.7 (95% confidence interval (CI) 37.4 to 38.0) for UKA and 36.1 (95% CI 35.9 to 36.3) for TKA; the mean EuroQol EQ-5D index was 0.772 (95% CI 0.764 to 0.780) for UKA and 0.751 (95% CI 0.747 to 0.756) for TKA. UKA patients were more likely to achieve excellent results (odds ratio (OR) 1.59, 95% CI 1.47 to 1.72, p < 0.001) and to be highly satisfied (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.39, p <  0.001), and were less likely to report complications than those who had undergone TKA. . UKA gives better early patient-reported outcomes than TKA; these differences are most marked for the very best outcomes. Complications and readmission are more likely after TKA. Although the data presented reflect the short-term outcome, they suggest that the high revision rate for UKA may not be because of poorer clinical outcomes. These factors should inform decision-making in patients eligible for either procedure. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:793–801

Current analysis of unicondylar knee replacements (UKRs) by national registries is based on the pooled results of medial and lateral implants. Consequently, little is known about the differential performance of medial and lateral replacements and the influence of each implant type within these pooled analyses. Using data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales (NJR) we aimed to determine the proportion of UKRs implanted on the lateral side of the knee, and their survival and reason for failure compared with medial UKRs. By combining information on the side of operation with component details held on the NJR, we were able to determine implant laterality (medial versus lateral) for 32 847 of the 35 624 unicondylar replacements (92%) registered before December 2010. Of these, 2052 (6%) were inserted on the lateral side of the knee. The rates of survival at five years were 93.1% (95% confidence interval (CI) 92.7 to 93.5) for medial and 93.0% (95% CI 91.1 to 94.9) for lateral UKRs (p = 0.49). The rates of failure remained equivalent after adjusting for patient age, gender, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, indication for surgery and implant design using Cox’s proportional hazards method (hazard ratio for lateral relative to medial replacement = 0.88 (95% CI 0.69 to 1.13); p = 0.32). Aseptic loosening/lysis and unexplained pain were the main reasons for revision in both groups, although the reasons did vary depending on whether a mobile- or a fixed-bearing design was used. At a maximum of eight years the mid-term survival rates of medial and lateral UKRs are similar

Purpose. Little information is available relating to patient demographics, reasons for failure and types of implants used at time of revision following failure of patellofemoral joint (PFJ) replacement. Methods and Results. Using data extracted from the NJR a series of 128 PFJ revisions in whom the index primary procedure was also recorded in the NJR were identified. This cohort therefore represents early failures of PFJ replacements revised over a 2 year period which were implanted after April 2003 and included revisions of 11 different brands of PFJ replacement from 6 different manufacturers. The median age at primary procedure was 59.0 (Range 21.1 to 83.2) of which 43 patients were <55 years old (31 males, 97 females). 19% of the revisions were performed in the first year after implantation, in the second year in 33 cases (26%), in the third year in 39 cases (31%) and between years 4 to 7 in 32 patients (25%). The commonest reasons for revision were pain (35%), aseptic loosening (18%), subluxation, dislocation or instability (11%), PE wear (7%) and component malalignment (6%). No reason for revision was stated in 30% and only 2 cases were revised for infection. Reason for revision differed according to year of failure but was consistent with respect to age at primary surgery. PFJ revision reason differed from those stated for revisions of primary UKR and TKR from the same period with pain being more prevalent and aseptic loosening and infection being less prevalent in the PFJ group. Single stage revision was performed in 124 cases and 118 underwent cemented revision. Conclusion. Limited data exists on the demographics and outcome for patellofemoral arthroplasty revision. This study is the first to identify reasons for failure in a large cohort and relate such to duration of primary component

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.

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

Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a common and safe orthopaedic procedure. Zimmer Biomet's NexGen is the second most popular brand of implant used in the UK. The primary cause of revision after the first year is aseptic loosening. We present our experience of using this implant, with significant concerns around its performance with regards early aseptic loosening of the tibial component.

Introduction. The revision rate of unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) in national joint registries is much higher than that of total knee replacements and that of UKR in cohort studies from multiple high-volume centres. The reasons for this are unclear but may be due to incorrect patient selection, inadequate surgical technique, and inappropriate indications for revision. Meniscal bearing UKR has well defined evidence based indications based on preoperative radiographs, the surgical technique can be assessed from post-operative radiographs and the reason for revision from pre-revision radiographs. However, for an accurate assessment aligned radiographs are required. The aim of the study was to determine why the revision rate of UKR in registries is so high by undertaking a radiographic review of revised UKR identified by the United Kingdom's (UK) National Joint Registry (NJR). Methods. A novel cross-sectional study was designed. Revised medial meniscal bearing UKR with primary operation registered with the NJR between 2006 and 2010 were identified. Participating centres from all over the country provided blinded pre-operative, post-operative, and pre-revision radiographs. Two observers reviewed the radiographs. Results. Radiographs were provided for 107 revised UKR from multiple centres. The recommended indications were not satisfied in 30%. The most common reason was the absence of bone-on-bone arthritis, and in 16 (19%) the medial joint space was normal or nearly normal. Post-operative films were mal-aligned in 50%. Significant surgical errors were seen in 50%, with most errors attributable to tibial component placement and orientation. No definite reason for revision was identified in 67%. Reasons for revision included disease progression (10%), tibial component loosening (7%), dislocation of the bearing (7%), infection (6%) femoral component loosening (3%), and peri-prosthetic fracture (2% - one femur, one tibia). Discussion and Conclusion. This study found that improper patient selection, inadequate surgical technique, inappropriate revisions and poorly taken radiographs all contributed to the high revision rate. There is a misconception that UKR should be used for early OA. Bone-on-bone arthritis is a requirement and was definitely not present in about 20%. There were many surgical errors, particularly related to the tibial cut: The new instrumentation should reduce this. There was a high prevalence of mal-aligned radiographs. Revisions should be avoided unless there is a definite problem, as the outcome of revision is usually poor in this situation. 80% of UKR revisions could potentially be avoided if surgeons adhered to the recommended indications for primary and revision surgery, and used the recommended surgical techniques. This study therefore suggests that if UKR was used appropriately the revision rate would be substantially lower and probably similar to that of TKR

Aims

The aim of this study was to evaluate medium- to long-term outcomes and complications of the Stanmore Modular Individualised Lower Extremity System (SMILES) rotating hinge implant in revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) at a tertiary unit. It is hypothesized that this fully cemented construct leads to satisfactory clinical outcomes.

Aims

Aseptic loosening is the most common cause of failure following cemented total knee arthroplasty (TKA), and has been linked to poor cementation technique. We aimed to develop a consensus on the optimal technique for component cementation in TKA.