Aims. Loosening of components after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) can be associated with the development of radiolucent lines (RLLs). The aim of this study was to assess the rate of formation of RLLs in the cemented original design of the ATTUNE TKA and their relationship to loosening. Methods. A systematic search was undertaken using the Cochrane methodology in three online databases: MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL. Studies were screened against predetermined criteria, and data were extracted. Available
Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a cost effective
and extremely successful operation. As longevity increases, the demand
for primary TKA will continue to rise. The success and survivorship
of TKAs are dependent on the demographics of the patient, surgical
technique and implant-related factors. . Currently the risk of failure of a TKA requiring revision surgery
ten years post-operatively is 5%. . The most common indications for revision include aseptic loosening
(29.8%), infection (14.8%), and pain (9.5%). Revision surgery poses
considerable clinical burdens on patients and financial burdens
on healthcare systems. . We present a current concepts review on the epidemiology of failed
TKAs using data from worldwide
Background. The cemented mobile bearing metal backed low contact stress patellofemoral arthroplasty (LCS PFA) is a newer design belonging to the second generation of inlay type implant, based on the more successful knee arthroplasty model. The advantage is the patella can articulate with the trochlear implant as well as the femoral component of a total knee replacement (TKR). Patients. This series is a cohort of 21 patients who underwent 24 (3 bilateral) unicompartmental PFA replacements for isolated patellofemoral osteoarthritis. We have used the mobile bearing LCS PFA in all of them. There were 3 males and 18 females. Average age was 51(40-58) years. The Oxford Knee score was used to assess the results. Results. At the latest follow-up averaging 2.7 (0.5 to 4) years, 9 patients showed excellent improvement in their knee scores, 5 patients showed fair improvement and 7 patients very little. There were 9 revisions in 7 patients either due to mechanical problems or with persistent symptoms. We had 4 patients with mechanical complications who underwent revision and 4 patients had a conversion to TKR. The revision rate at 2 years was 33%. There were no infections or loosening of trochlear implants. Conclusion. The revision rate for this implant seems to be very high and mainly with the patellar implant (at the metal polyethylene interface). The Australian Orthopaedic association annual joint registry report 2008 reported a higher revision rate for the same implant at 5% from a pool of 1057 patients. The young active patient having a patellofemoral replacement may put extreme force on their patellar implant. We strongly advocate patellofemoral arthroplasties to be analysed separately from the unicompartmental knees in the
Cementless knee arthroplasty has seen a recent resurgence in popularity due to conceptual advantages, including improved osseointegration providing biological fixation, increased surgical efficiency, and reduced systemic complications associated with cement impaction and wear from cement debris. Increasingly younger and higher demand patients are requiring knee arthroplasty, and as such, there is optimism cementless fixation may improve implant survivorship and functional outcomes. Compared to cemented implants, the National Joint Registry (NJR) currently reports higher revision rates in cementless total knee arthroplasty (TKA), but lower in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA). However, recent studies are beginning to show excellent outcomes with cementless implants, particularly with UKA which has shown superior performance to cemented varieties. Cementless TKA has yet to show long-term benefit, and currently performs equivalently to cemented in short- to medium-term cohort studies. However, with novel concepts including 3D-printed coatings, robotic-assisted surgery, radiostereometric analysis, and kinematic or functional knee alignment principles, it is hoped they may help improve the outcomes of cementless TKA in the long-term. In addition, though cementless implant costs remain higher due to novel implant coatings, it is speculated cost-effectiveness can be achieved through greater surgical efficiency and potential reduction in revision costs. There is paucity of level one data on long-term outcomes between fixation methods and the cost-effectiveness of modern cementless knee arthroplasty. This review explores recent literature on cementless knee arthroplasty, with regards to clinical outcomes, implant survivorship, complications, and cost-effectiveness; providing a concise update to assist clinicians on implant choice. Cite this article:
Cementless unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) has advantages over cemented UKA, including improved fixation, but has a higher risk of tibial plateau fracture, particularly in Japanese patients. The aim of this multicentre study was to determine when cementless tibial components could safely be used in Japanese patients based on the size and shape of the tibia. The study involved 212 cementless Oxford UKAs which were undertaken in 174 patients in six hospitals. The medial eminence line (MEL), which is a line parallel to the tibial axis passing through the tip of medial intercondylar eminence, was drawn on preoperative radiographs. Knees were classified as having a very overhanging medial tibial condyle if this line passed medial to the medial tibial cortex. They were also classified as very small if a size A/AA tibial component was used.Aims
Methods
There is a large amount of evidence available
about the relative merits of unicompartmental and total knee arthroplasty
(UKA and TKA). Based on the same evidence, different people draw
different conclusions and as a result, there is great variability
in the usage of UKA. The revision rate of UKA is much higher than TKA and so some
surgeons conclude that UKA should not be performed. Other surgeons
believe that the main reason for the high revision rate is that
UKA is easy to revise and, therefore, the threshold for revision
is low. They also believe that UKA has many advantages over TKA
such as a faster recovery, lower morbidity and mortality and better
function. They therefore conclude that UKA should be undertaken
whenever appropriate. The solution to this argument is to minimise the revision rate
of UKA, thereby addressing the main disadvantage of UKA. The evidence
suggests that this will be achieved if surgeons use UKA for at least
20% of their knee arthroplasties and use implants that are appropriate
for these broad indications. Cite this article: