Introduction. Both mobile bearing and fixed bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) have demonstrated clinical success. However, much debate persists about the superiority of a single design. Currently most clinical data is based on high volume centers data, however to reduce bias, we undertook a through review of retrospective national joint registries. In this study, we aim to investigate UKA implant utilization and survivorship between 2000 and 2018. Methods. Ten annual joint registry reports of various nations were reviewed. Due to the variable statistical methods of reporting implant use and survivorship we focused on three registries: Australia (AOANJRR), New Zealand (NZJR), United Kingdom (NJR) for uniformity. We evaluated UKA usage, survivorship, utilization and revision rates for each implant. Implant survivorship was reported in the registries and was compared within nations due to variation in statistical reporting. Results. UKAs accounted for 7.24–10.3% of all primary knee surgeries. The most popular implants were, in order of popularity, the Oxford (ZimmerBiomet, Warsaw IN), ZUK (Smith & Nephew, Memphis TN / LimaCorporate, Udine, Italy), Sigma HP (DePuy, Warsaw IN), Miller-Galante (ZimmerBiomet Warsaw IN), and Preservation (DePuy, Warsaw IN) models. UKA revision rates varied by nation and ranged from 8.22%–12.8%. The Sigma HP and ZUK designs had the lowest total percent revised in the registries-Australian (3.6% and 5.1%, respectively) and New Zealand (2.5% and 1.96%, respectively)-and demonstrated among the highest 10-year survivorship in the United Kingdom registry. The United Kingdom registry reports a greater number of mobile versus fixed bearing UKA undergoing revision for dislocation and/or subluxation and instability. Conclusion. Preference for implant design as well as survivorship rates varied significantly by nation. The fixed bearing ZUK and Sigma HP implants were among the highest performing implants across the three registries

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

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

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

Abstract

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

Abstract

Aims. This study aimed to describe the use of revision knee arthroplasty in Australia and examine changes in lifetime risk over a decade. Methods. De-identified individual-level data on all revision knee arthroplasties performed in Australia from 2007 to 2017 were obtained from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. Population data and life tables were obtained from the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The lifetime risk of revision surgery was calculated for each year using a standardized formula. Separate calculations were undertaken for males and females. Results. In total, 43,188 revision knee arthroplasty procedures were performed in Australia during the study period, with a median age at surgery of 69 years (interquartile range (IQR) 62 to 76). In 2017, revision knee arthroplasty rates were highest for males aged 70 to 79 years (102.9 procedures per 100,000 population). Lifetime risk of revision knee arthroplasty for females increased slightly from 1.61% (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.53% to 1.69%) in 2007 to 2.22% (95% CI 2.13% to 2.31%) in 2017. A similar pattern was evident for males, with a lifetime risk of 1.43% (95% CI 1.36% to 1.51%) in 2007 and 2.02% (95% CI 1.93% to 2.11%) in 2017. A decline in procedures performed for loosening/lysis (from 41% in 2007 to 24% in 2017) and pain (from 14% to 9%) was evident, while infection became an increasingly common indication (from 19% in 2007 to 29% in 2017). Conclusion. Well-validated national registry data can help us understand the epidemiology of revision knee arthroplasty, including changing clinical indications. Despite a small increase over a decade, the lifetime risk of revision knee arthroplasty in Australia is low at one in 45 females and one in 50 males. These methods offer a population-level approach to quantifying revision burden that can be used for ongoing national surveillance and between-country comparisons. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(5):613–619

Aims. Knee arthroplasty surgery is a highly effective treatment for arthritis and disorders of the knee. There are a wide variety of implant brands and types of knee arthroplasty available to surgeons. As a result of a number of highly publicized failures, arthroplasty surgery is highly regulated in the UK and many other countries through national registries, introduced to monitor implant performance, surgeons, and hospitals. With time, the options available within many brand portfolios have grown, with alternative tibial or femoral components, tibial insert materials, or shapes and patella resurfacings. In this study we have investigated the effect of the expansion of implant brand portfolios and where there may be a lack of transparency around a brand name. We also aimed to establish the potential numbers of compatible implant construct combinations. Methods. Hypothetical implant brand portfolios were proposed, and the number of compatible implant construct combinations was calculated. Results. A simple knee portfolio with cemented cruciate-retaining (CR) and posterior-stabilized (PS) components, with and without a patella, has four combinations. If there are two options available for each component, the numbers double for each option, resulting in 32 combinations. The effect of adding a third option multiplies the number by 1.3. Introducing compatible uncemented options, with the effect of hybrids, multiplies the number by 4. An implant portfolio with two femoral components (both in CR and PS), with two insert options and a patella, all in cemented and uncemented versions leads to 192 possible compatible implant construct combinations. There are implant brands available to surgeons with many more than two options. Conclusion. This study demonstrates that the addition of multiple variants within a knee brand portfolio leads to a large number (many hundreds) of compatible implant construct combinations. Revision rates of implant combinations are not currently reviewed at this level of granularity, leading to the risk of camouflage of true outcomes. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(10):1555–1560

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. Methods. A retrospective consecutive study of all patients who underwent a rTKA using the fully cemented SMILES rotating hinge prosthesis between 2005 to 2018. Outcome measures included aseptic loosening, reoperations, revision for any cause, complications, and survivorship. Patients and implant survivorship data were identified through both prospectively collected local hospital electronic databases and linked data from the National Joint Registry/NHS Personal Demographic Service. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used at ten years. Results. Overall, 69 consecutive patients (69 knees) were included with a median age of 78 years (interquartile range 69 to 84), and there were 46 females (66.7%). Indications were septic revisions in 26 (37.7%), and aseptic aetiology in the remining 43 (62.3%). The mean follow-up was 9.7 years (4 to 18), and the overall complication was rate was 7.24%, all with patellofemoral complications. Failure rate with ‘any cause revision’ was 5.8%. There was one case of aseptic loosening of the femoral component. At ten years, 17/69 patients (24.63%) had died, and implant survivorship was 92.2%. Conclusion. In our experience, the SMILES rotating hinge prosthesis achieves satisfactory long-term outcomes with ten-year implant survivorship of 92.2% and a patellofemoral complication rate of 7.24%. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(10):776–781

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. Methods. A UK-based, three-round, online modified Delphi Expert Consensus Study was completed focusing on cementation technique in TKA. Experts were identified as having a minimum of five years’ consultant experience in the NHS and fulfilling any one of the following criteria: a ‘high volume’ knee arthroplasty practice (> 150 TKAs per annum) as identified from the National joint Registry of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man; a senior author of at least five peer reviewed articles related to TKA in the previous five years; a surgeon who is named trainer for a post-certificate of comletion of training fellowship in TKA. Results. In total, 81 experts (round 1) and 80 experts (round 2 and 3) completed the Delphi Study. Four domains with a total of 24 statements were identified. 100% consensus was reached within the cement preparation, pressurization, and cement curing domains. 90% consensus was reached within the cement application domain. Consensus was not reached with only one statement regarding the handling of cement during initial application to the tibial and/or femoral bone surfaces. Conclusion. The Cementing Techniques In Knee Surgery (CeTIKS) Delphi consensus study presents comprehensive recommendations on the optimal technique for component cementing in TKA. Expert opinion has a place in the hierarchy of evidence and, until better evidence is available these recommendations should be considered when cementing a TKA. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(9):682–688

Aims. The aim of this study was to compare patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) following isolated anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), with those following ACLR and concomitant meniscal resection or repair. Methods. We reviewed prospectively collected data from the UK National Ligament Registry for patients who underwent primary ACLR between January 2013 and December 2022. Patients were categorized into five groups: isolated ACLR, ACLR with medial meniscus (MM) repair, ACLR with MM resection, ACLR with lateral meniscus (LM) repair, and ACLR with LM resection. Linear regression analysis, with isolated ACLR as the reference, was performed after adjusting for confounders. Results. From 14,895 ACLR patients, 4,400 had two- or five-year Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Scores (KOOS) available. At two years postoperatively, the MM repair group demonstrated inferior scores in KOOS pain (β = −3.63, p < 0.001), symptoms (β = − 4.88, p < 0.001), ADL (β = − 2.43, p = 0.002), sport and recreation (β = − 5.23, p < 0.001), quality of life (QoL) (β = − 5.73, p < 0.001), and International Knee Documentation Committee (β = − 4.1, p < 0.001) compared with the isolated ACLR group. The LM repair group was associated with worse KOOS sports and recreation scores at two years (β = − 4.264, p < 0.001). At five years, PROMs were comparable between the groups. At five years, PROMs were comparable between the groups. Participants undergoing ACLR surgery within 12 weeks from index injury demonstrated superior PROMs at two and five years. Conclusion. Our study showed that MM repair, and to a lesser extent LM repairs in combination with ACLR, were associated with inferior patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) compared to isolated ACLR at two years postoperatively, while meniscal resection groups exhibited comparable outcomes. However, by five years postoperation, no significant differences in PROMs were evident. Further longer-term, cross-sectional studies are warranted to investigate the outcomes of ACLR and concomitant meniscal surgery

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. Aseptic loosening is the most common cause of failure following cemented total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and this has been linked to poor cementation technique. We aimed to develop a consensus on the optimal technique for component cementation in TKA. Methodology. A UK based, three round, online modified Delphi Expert Consensus Study was completed focussing on cementation technique in TKA. Experts were identified as having a minimum of 5 years Consultant experience in the NHS and fulfilling any one of the following three criteria:. · A ‘high volume’ knee arthroplasty practice (>150 TKA per annum) as identified from the National joint registry (NJR). · A senior author of at least 5 peer reviewed articles related to TKA in the previous 5 years. · A named trainer for a post CCT fellowship in TKA. Results. Eighty-one experts (Round 1) and eighty experts (Round 2 and 3) completed the Delphi Study. Four domains with a total of twenty-four statements were identified. 100% consensus was reached within the cement preparation, pressurisation, and cement curing domains. 90% consensus was reached within the cement application domain. Consensus was not reached with only one statement regarding the handling of cement during initial application to the tibial and/or femoral bone surfaces. Conclusion. The CeTIKS expert consensus study presents comprehensive recommendations on the optimal technique for component cementation in TKA. Expert opinion has a place in the hierarchy of evidence and until better evidence is available these recommendations should be considered when cementing a TKA

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. Methods. Patient demographic details, BMI, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, indication for revision, surgical approach, surgeon grade, implant type (fixed and rotating), time of revision from primary implantation, and re-revision if undertaken were obtained from the National Joint Registry data for England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the Isle of Man over an 18-year period (2003 to 2021). Results. There were 3,855 patient episodes analyzed with a median age of 73 years (interquartile range (IQR) 66 to 80), and the majority were female (n = 2,480, 64.3%). The median time to revision from primary knee arthroplasty was 1,219 days (IQR 579 to 2,422). Younger age (p < 0.001), decreasing ASA grade (p < 0.001), and indications for revision of sepsis (p < 0.001), unexplained pain (p < 0.001), non-polyethylene wear (p < 0.001), and malalignment (p < 0.001) were all associated with an earlier time to revision from primary implantation. The median follow-up was 4.56 years (range 0.00 to 17.52), during which there were 410 re-revisions. The overall unadjusted probability of re-revision for all revision HKAs at one, five, and ten years after surgery were 2.7% (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.2 to 3.3), 10.7% (95% CI 9.6 to 11.9), and 16.2% (95% CI 14.5 to 17.9), respectively. Male sex (p < 0.001), younger age (p < 0.001), revision for septic indications (p < 0.001) or implant fracture (p = 0.010), a fixed hinge (p < 0.001), or surgery performed by a non-consultant grade (p = 0.023) were independently associated with an increased risk of re-revision. Conclusion. There were several factors associated with time to first revision. The re-revision rate was 16.2% at ten years; however, the risk factors associated with an increased risk of re-revision could be used to counsel patients regarding their outcome. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(1):47–55

Abstract. Introduction. Patient selection is key to the success of medial unicondylar knee arthroplasty (UKA). Progression of arthritis is the most common indication for revision. Various methods of assessing the lateral compartment have been used including stress radiography, radioisotope bone scanning, MRI, and visualisation at the time of surgery. Arthroscopy is another means of assessing the integrity of the lateral compartment. Methods. We used per-operative arthroscopy as a means to confirm suitability for UKA in a consecutive series of 279 Oxford medial UKA. This study reports the long-term results of a previously published cohort of knees. Our series of UKA with per-operative arthroscopy (Group 1) was compared to all Oxford UKA (Group 2) and all UKA in the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) (Group 3). Results. The 14-year cumulative percentage revision (CPR) was 18.5% (95% CI 12.7, 26.4) for group 1, 19.7% (95% CI 18.8, 20.6) for group 2, and 19.2% (95% CI 18.5, 19.8) for group 3. There was no statistically significant difference in the (CPR) for the entire period when group 1 was compared to groups 2 or 3. Progression of arthritis was the indication for revision in similar proportions for the three groups (Group 1: 32.3%, Group 2: 35.7% and Group 3: 33.5%). Following per-operative arthroscopy 21.6% (77/356) of knees underwent a change of surgical plan from UKA to TKA. Conclusion. Per-operative arthroscopy may improve medium-term medial unicompartmental knee survivorship but does not improve long-term survivorship nor reduce revision due to progression of arthritis

Aims. The mid-term results of kinematic alignment (KA) for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) using image derived instrumentation (IDI) have not been reported in detail, and questions remain regarding ligamentous stability and revisions. This paper aims to address the following: 1) what is the distribution of alignment of KA TKAs using IDI; 2) is a TKA alignment category associated with increased risk of failure or poor patient outcomes; 3) does extending limb alignment lead to changes in soft-tissue laxity; and 4) what is the five-year survivorship and outcomes of KA TKA using IDI?. Methods. A prospective, multicentre, trial enrolled 100 patients undergoing KA TKA using IDI, with follow-up to five years. Alignment measures were conducted pre- and postoperatively to assess constitutional alignment and final implant position. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) of pain and function were also included. The Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Arthroplasty Registry was used to assess survivorship. Results. The postoperative HKA distribution varied from 9° varus to 11° valgus. All PROMs showed statistical improvements at one year (p < 0.001), with further improvements at five years for Knee Osteoarthritis Outcome Score symptoms (p = 0.041) and Forgotten Joint Score (p = 0.011). Correlation analysis showed no difference (p = 0.610) between the hip-knee-ankle and joint line congruence angle at one and five years. Sub-group analysis showed no difference in PROMs for patients placed within 3° of neutral compared to those placed > 3°. There were no revisions for tibial loosening; however, there were reports of a higher incidence of poor patella tracking and patellofemoral stiffness. Conclusion. PROMs were not impacted by postoperative alignment category. Ligamentous stability was maintained at five years with joint line obliquity. There were no revisions for tibial loosening despite a significant portion of tibiae placed in varus; however, KA executed with IDI resulted in a higher than anticipated rate of patella complications. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(8):656–665

Aim. There has been a significant reduction in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) procedures recorded in Australia. This follows several national joint registry studies documenting high UKA revision rates when compared to total knee arthroplasty (TKA). With the recent introduction of robotically assisted UKA procedures, it is hoped that outcomes improve. This study examines the cumulative revision rate of UKA procedures implanted with a newly introduced robotic system and compares the results to one of the best performing non-robotically assisted UKA prostheses, as well as all other non-robotically assisted UKA procedures. Methods. Data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Arthroplasty Registry (AOANJRR) for all UKA procedures performed for osteoarthritis (OA) between 2015 and 2018 were analyzed. Procedures using the Restoris MCK UKA prosthesis implanted using the Mako Robotic-Arm Assisted System were compared to non-robotically assisted Zimmer Unicompartmental High Flex Knee System (ZUK) UKA, a commonly used UKA with previously reported good outcomes and to all other non-robotically assisted UKA procedures using Cox proportional hazard ratios (HRs) and Kaplan-Meier estimates of survivorship. Results. There was no difference in the rate of revision when the Mako-assisted Restoris UKA was compared to the ZUK UKA (zero to nine months: HR 1.14 (95% CI 0.71 to 1.83; p = 0.596) vs nine months and over: HR 0.66 (95% CI 0.42 to 1.02; p = 0.058)). The Mako-assisted Restoris had a significantly lower overall revision rate compared to the other types of non-robotically assisted procedures (HR 0.58 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.42 to 0.79); p < 0.001) at three years. Revision for aseptic loosening was lower for the Mako-assisted Restoris compared to all other non-robotically assisted UKA (entire period: HR 0.34 (95% CI 0.17 to 0.65); p = 0.001), but not the ZUK prosthesis. However, revision for infection was significantly higher for the Mako-assisted Restoris compared to the two comparator groups (ZUK: entire period: HR 2.91 (95% CI 1.22 to 6.98; p = 0.016); other non-robotically assisted UKA: zero to three months: HR 5.57 (95% CI 2.17 to 14.31; p < 0.001)). Conclusion. This study reports comparable short-term survivorship for the Mako robotically assisted UKA compared to the ZUK UKA and improved survivorship compared to all other non-robotic UKA. These results justify the continued use and investigation of this procedure. However, the higher rate of early revision for infection for robotically assisted UKA requires further investigation. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(3):319–328

Aims. The aim of this study was to evaluate medium-term outcomes and complications of the S-ROM NOILES Rotating Hinge Knee System (DePuy, USA) in revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) at a tertiary unit. Methods. A retrospective consecutive study of all patients who underwent a rTKA using this implant from January 2005 to December 2018. Outcome measures included reoperations, revision for any cause, complications, and survivorship. Patients and implant survivorship data were identified through both local hospital electronic databases and linked data from the National Joint Registry/NHS Personal Demographic Service. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used at ten years. Results. A total of 89 consecutive patients (89 knees) were included with 47 females (52.8%) and a median age of 74 years (interquartile range 66 to 79). The main indications were aseptic loosening with instability (39.4%; n = 35) and infection (37.1%; n = 33) with the majority of patients managed through two-stage approach. The mean follow-up was 7.4 years (2 to 16). The overall rate of reoperation, for any cause, was 10.1% (n = 9) with a rate of implant revision of 6.7% (n = 6). Only two cases required surgery for patellofemoral complications. Kaplan-Meier implant-survivorship analysis was 93.3% at ten years, using revision for any cause as an endpoint. Conclusion. This implant achieved high ten-year survivorship with a low complication rate, particularly patellofemoral complications. These can be avoided by ensuring central patella tracking and appropriate tension of the patellofemoral joint in this posterior hinge design. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(3):205–210

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