Aims

There is limited information on outcomes of revision ACL reconstruction (rACLR) in soccer (association football) athletes, particularly on return to sport and the rate of additional knee surgery. The purpose of this study was to report return to soccer after rACLR, and to test the hypothesis that patient sex and graft choice are associated with return to play and the likelihood of future knee surgery in soccer players undergoing rACLR.

Abstract. Introduction. Previous research has demonstrated no clinically significant benefit of arthroscopic meniscectomy in patients with a meniscal tear, however, patients included in these studies would not meet current treatment recommendations. Prior to further randomised controlled trials (RCTs) research is needed to understand a younger population in more detail. Aim. To describe the baseline characteristics of patients with a meniscal tear and explore any association between baseline characteristics and outcome. Methodology. A prospective, national multicentre cohort study was performed recruiting patients aged 18 to 55 presenting to secondary care. MRI analysis of arthritis was performed using Whole Organ Magnetic Resonance Imaging Score (WORMS) and bone shape analysis. Outcomes included the Western Ontario Meniscal Evaluation Tool (WOMET) and Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS4) at 12 months. Results. 150 participants were recruited across eight sites with a mean age of 43.47 (SD 9.63). MRI analysis using WORMS score and bone shape analysis revealed no or early osteoarthritis. At 12 months, 67 (44.67%) of participants were managed non-operatively and 68 (45.33%) were operatively. Participants in the operative group were significantly younger with a lower BMI (p<0.05). A stepwise logistic regression model including 17 characteristics revealed that only baseline score and surgery significantly affected 12-month WOMET and KOOS4. Conclusion. This study in contrast to previous trials demonstrated a benefit of surgery for patients with a meniscal tear. The METRO study demonstrates that it is feasible to recruit younger patients and a future RCT is required using the study population included in this cohort

Abstract. Background. Meniscal tears affect 222 per 100,000 of the population and can be managed non-operatively or operatively with an arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM), meniscal repair or meniscal transplantation. The purpose of this review is to summarise the outcomes following treatment with a meniscal tear and explore correlations between outcomes. Methodology. A systematic review was performed of MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify prospective studies describing the outcomes of patients with a meniscal tear. Comparisons were made of outcomes between APM and non-operative groups. Outcomes were graphically presented over time for all treatment interventions. Pearson's correlations were calculated between outcome timepoints. Results. 35 studies were included, 28 reported outcomes following APM; four following meniscal repair and three following meniscal transplant. Graphical plots demonstrated a sustained improvement for all treatment interventions. A moderate to very strong correlation was reported between baseline and three-month outcomes. In the medium term, there was small significant difference in outcome between APM and non-operative measures (SMD 0.17; 95 % CI 0.04, 0.29), however, this was not clinically significant. Conclusions. Patients with a meniscal tear demonstrated a sustained initial improvement in function scores, which was true of all treatments examined. APM may have little benefit in older people, however, previous trials did not include patients who meet the current indications for surgery as a result the findings should not be generalised to all patients with a meniscal tear. Further trials are required in patients who meet current operative indications

Abstract. Introduction. Derby technique for posterolateral corner (PLC) reconstruction uses a doubled gracilis autograft to reconstruct the popliteo-fibular ligament (PFL) and a split biceps tendon transfer to reconstruct the lateral collateral ligament (LCL). We report midterm outcomes of a case series who underwent PLC reconstruction. Methodology. A retrospective review of 27 patients who underwent PLC reconstruction from 2012 until 2018 was performed (6 females, 21 males, median age 26). Median time interval from injury to primary procedure was 10 months. Outcomes were recorded as per clinical assessment and outcome scores. Results. All patients had no varus laxity in full knee extension. Similarly, at 30° of knee flexion, 25 patients (92.5%) had no varus laxity and 2 patients (7.5%) had grade 1 laxity. No patients demonstrated abnormal external rotation at final follow up. Outcome scores were obtained from 17 patients who underwent primary ligament reconstruction at a mean follow up of 72 months postoperatively. The mean Lysholm score was 94 +/-5.5 (72–100) and mean subjective IKDC score was 78/87 (89.6%) (51–87). 90% of our patients had gained normal or nearly normal IKDC scores on returning to routine activities of daily living and sports following surgery compared to their pre-injury status. Conclusion. Our technique enables an anatomical LCL & PFL reconstruction in isolation or in combination with ACL/PCL reconstruction or to augment an acute repair without contralateral graft harvest or allograft. The functional knee scores demonstrated in this cohort are comparable and in fact superior to previously published knee scores after PLC reconstruction

Introduction. The effect of using thicker liners in primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) on functional outcomes and aseptic failure rates remains largely unknown. As such, we devised a multicenter study to assess both the clinical outcomes and survivorship of thick vs thin liners after primary TKA. Methods. A search of our institutional databases was performed for patients having undergone bilateral (simultaneous or staged) primary TKA with similar preoperative and surgical characteristics between both sides. Two cohorts were created: thick liners and thin liners. Outcomes collected were as follows: change in Knee Society Score (DKSS), change in range of motion, and aseptic revision. Ad hoc power analysis was performed for DKSS (α ¼ 0.05; power ¼ 80%). Differences between cohorts were assessed. Results. 195 TKAs were identified for each cohort. DKSS and change in range of motion in the thin vs thick cohorts were similar: 51.4 vs 51.6 (P ¼ .86) and 11.1 vs 10.0 (P ¼ .66), respectively. No difference in aseptic revision rates were observed between thin and thick cohorts: all cause (4.1%, 3.1%; P ¼ .59), aseptic loosening (0.5%, 0.5%; P ¼ 1.0), instability (0.5%, 0.5%; P ¼ 1.0), all-cause revision for stiffness (3.1%, 2.1%; P ¼ .52), manipulation under anesthesia (2.1%, 2.1%; P ¼ 1.0), and liner exchange (0.5%, 0%; P ¼ .32). Conclusion. The results of this study suggest that both rates of revision surgery and clinical outcomes are similar for TKAs performed with thick and thin liners. Preoperative factors are likely to play an important role in liner thickness selection, and emphasis should be placed on ensuring sound surgical technique

Introduction. Cementless total knees were historically associated with early failure. These failures, likely associated with implant design, made cemented total knee arthroplasty (TKA) the “gold standard”. Manufacturers have introduced newer uncemented technologies that provide good initial stability and utilize a highly-porous substrates for bony in-growth. Outcome data on these implants has been limited. In addition, these implants typically have a price premium which makes them difficult to use in the setting of cost containment and in at risk 90-day bundles. Our purpose was to compare 90-day outcomes of a new uncemented implant with those of a comparable cemented implant from the same manufacturer. We hypothesized that the implants would have equivalent 90-day clinical and economic outcomes. Methods. Ninety-day clinical and economic outcomes for 252 patients with prospectively collected data from the Michigan Arthroplasty Registry Collaborative Quality Initiative (MARCQI) database were reviewed. Ninety-day outcomes were compared between uncemented knees and an age-matched group of cemented knees (Triathlon cemented vs uncemented Triathalon-tritanium, Stryker Orthopedics, Mahwah, NJ, USA). Both cruciate retaining and posterior stabilized designs were included. MARCQI data: demographics, co-morbidities, length of stay, complications, emergency department visits, discharge disposition, and readmissions were reviewed. Financial data provided by the hospital's finance department was used for economic comparisons. Fischer's test was done to assess categorical data and a student's t-test was used to compare numerical data. Results. Uncemented knees had shorter length of stay (1.58 vs. 1.87, p<0.0001), were more frequently discharged home (90.48% vs. 68.75%; p<0.0001) and used less home care or extended care facilities (6.35% vs. 19.14%, p<0.0001; 2.78% vs. 11.72%, p=0.0001). More uncemented knees had “no complications”. Moreover, there were no reoperations in uncemented knees, compared to 19 reoperations in cemented knees most being manipulations (14 vs. 0, p=0.0028). Uncemented knees scored better than age matched counterparts Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcomes Score (63.69 vs. 47.10, n=85 and 43, p<0.0001), and Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System T-physical and T-mental (44.12 vs. 39.45, n=95 and 59, p<0.0001; 51.84 vs 47.82, n=97 and 59, p=0.0018). Cemented cases were more expensive overall, the surgical costs were higher ($6806.43 vs. $5710.78 p<0.01) and the total hospital costs were higher ($8347.65 vs. $7016.11 p<0.01). The 90-day readmission and hospital outpatient costs were not significantly different between the designs. Conclusion. The use of a modern uncemented TKA implants has increased, but data on outcomes and the economic impact has been limited particularly in regard to 90-day at risk global periods. Our study suggests that patients receiving an new uncemented TKA have a shorter length of stay, higher rate of discharge to home, better patient reported outcome measures, fewer complications and fewer reoperations than an age-matched group of patients receiving a similar, cemented design during the 90-day global period. Importantly, the uncemented knees had $1,095 less surgical episode costs (p< 0.001) and a 90-day cost savings of over $1,300 (p< 0.001). Uncemented TKA, when utilizing modern technologies, is successful and economically viable for an at-risk bundle. The results of this study should alleviate fears increased cost, early failure, complications or poor outcomes with the use of a modern uncemented TKA

Introduction. Although we know that smoking damages health, we do not know impact of smoking on a patient's outcome following primary knee arthroplasty (KA). In the UK, clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) have the authority (& funds) to commission healthcare services for their communities. Over the past decade, an increasing number of CCGs are using smoking as a contraindication for patients with end-stage symptomatic knee arthritis being referred to a specialist for due consideration of KA without any clear evidence of the associated risks & benefits. The overall objective of this study is to compare clinical outcomes after knee arthroplasty surgery in smokers, ex-smokers & non-smokers. Methods. We obtained data from the UK Clinical Research Practice Datalink (CPRD) that contains information on over 11 million patients (7% of the UK population) registered at over 600 general practices. CPRD data was linked to Hospital Episode Statistics, hospital admissions & Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) data. We collected data on all KAs (n=64,071) performed over a 21-year period (1995 to 2016). Outcomes assessed included: local & systemic complications (at 6-months post-surgery): infections (wound, respiratory, urinary), heart attack, stroke & transient ischaemic attack, venous thromboembolism, hospital readmissions & GP visits (1-year), analgesic use (1-year), surgical revision (up to 20-years), mortality (90-days and 1-year), & 6-month change from pre-operative scores in Oxford Knee Score (OKS). Regression modelling is used to describe the association of smoking on outcomes, adjusting for confounding factors. Results. Smoking was associated with an increased risk of lower respiratory tract infections (LRTI) (4.2% smokers vs. 2.7% non-smokers) (Odds Ratio (OR) 0.76, p-value 0.017). LRTI were similar in ex-smokers & smokers at 3.9%. There was no association with any of the other 6-month complications. Pain medication use over 1-year post surgery was higher in smokers compared to non-smokers: gabapentinoids 7.4% vs. 5.2% (OR 0.74, p< 0.001), opioids 45.9% vs. 35.3% (OR 0.79, p< 0.001), NSAIDs 51.6% vs. 46.1% (OR 0.91, p = 0.044). Mortality was higher in smokers at 1-year compared to non-smokers (hazard ratio (HR) 0.53, p<0.001) & ex-smokers (HR 0.65, p = 0.037), but there was no difference observed at 90-days. There was no association of smoking on revision surgery over 20-years follow up. Smoking was associated with worse postoperative OKS being 3.1 points higher in non-smokers (p<0.001) & 3.0 points higher in ex-smokers (p<0.001). The overall change in OKS before & after surgery was 13.9 points in smokers versus 16.3 points in non-smokers (p<0.001) & 15.7 points in ex-smokers (p<0.001). Over the year following surgery, smokers were more likely to visit their GP, but there was no association with hospital readmission rates. Conclusion. This is the largest study with linked primary care & secondary care data highlighting impact of a preventable patient factor on outcome of a routinely performed planned intervention. Smokers achieved clinical meaningful improvements in patient reported pain & function (OKS) following KA, although their attained post-operative OKS was lower than in non-smokers & ex-smokers. Levels of pain medication use were notably higher in both smokers & ex-smokers. As smokers achieved good clinical outcomes following KA surgery, smoking should not be a barrier to referral for or consideration of KA. However, the study does highlight particular risks a patient is taking if he/she continues to smoke when being considered for elective knee arthroplasty. This study will help the family physicians as well as patients to make an informed decision on whether to go ahead with a planned intervention whilst patient continues to be an active smoker or not. Key Words: Knee Arthroplasty, Smoking, Patient Reported Outcomes, Epidemiology, Complications

Aims. Cementless total knee arthroplasty (TKA) offers the potential for strong biological fixation compared with cemented TKA where fixation is achieved by the mechanical integration of the cement. Few mid-term results are available for newer cementless TKA designs, which have used additive manufacturing (3D printing). The aim of this study was to present mid-term clinical outcomes and implant survivorship of the cementless Stryker Triathlon Tritanium TKA. Methods. This was a single institution registry review of prospectively gathered data from 341 cementless Triathlon Tritanium TKAs at four to 6.8 years follow-up. Outcomes were determined by comparing pre- and postoperative Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacement (KOOS JR) scores, and pre- and postoperative 12-item Veterans RAND/Short Form Health Survey (VR/SF-12) scores. Aseptic loosening and revision for any reason were the endpoints which were used to determine survivorship at five years. Results. At mid-term follow-up, the mean KOOS JR score improved significantly from 33.14 (0 t0 85, standard deviation (SD) 21.88) preoperatively to 84.12 (15.94 to 100, SD 20.51) postoperatively (p < 0.001), the mean VR/SF-12 scores improved significantly from physical health (PH), 31.21 (SD 5.32; 23.99 to 56.77) preoperatively to 42.62 (SD 10.72; 19.38 to 56.82) postoperatively (p < 0.001) and the mental health (MH), 38.15 (SD 8.17; 19.06 to 60.75) preoperatively to 55.09 (SD 9.64; 19.06 to 66.98) postoperatively (p < 0.001). A total of 11 revisions were undertaken, with an overall revision rate of 2.94%, including five for periprosthetic joint infection (1.34%), three for loosening (0.80%), two for instability (0.53%), and one for pain (0.27%). The overall survivorship was 97.06% and survivorship for aseptic loosening as the endpoint was 98.40%, with a 99.5% survivorship of the 3D-printed tibial component. Conclusion. This 3D-printed cementless total knee system shows excellent survivorship at mid-term follow-up. This design and the ability to obtain cementless fixation offers promise for excellent long-term durability. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(6 Supple A):32–37

Aims. The outcomes of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) depend on many factors. The impact of implant design on patient-reported outcomes is unknown. Our goal was to evaluate the patient-reported outcomes and satisfaction after primary TKA in patients with osteoarthritis undergoing primary TKA using five different brands of posterior-stabilized implant. Patients and Methods. Using our institutional registry, we identified 4135 patients who underwent TKA using one of the five most common brands of implant. These included Biomet Vanguard (Zimmer Biomet, Warsaw, Indiana) in 211 patients, DePuy/Johnson & Johnson Sigma (DePuy Synthes, Raynham, Massachusetts) in 222, Exactech Optetrak Logic (Exactech, Gainesville, Florida) in 1508, Smith & Nephew Genesis II (Smith & Nephew, London, United Kingdom) in 1415, and Zimmer NexGen (Zimmer Biomet) in 779 patients. Patients were evaluated preoperatively using the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Lower Extremity Activity Scale (LEAS), and 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey questionnaire (SF-12). Demographics including age, body mass index, Charlson Comorbidity Index, American Society of Anethesiologists status, sex, and smoking status were collected. Postoperatively, two-year KOOS, LEAS, SF-12, and satisfaction scores were compared between groups. Results. Outcomes were available for 4069 patients (98%) at two years postoperatively. In multiple regression analysis, which separately compared each implant group with the aggregate of all others, there were no clinically significant differences in the change of KOOS score from baseline to two-year follow-up between any of the groups. More than 80% of patients in each group were satisfied at this time in all domains. In a multivariate regression model, patients in the NexGen group were the most likely to be satisfied (odds ratio (OR) 1.63; p = 0.006) and Optetrak Logic patients were the least likely to be satisfied (OR 0.60; p < 0.001). Conclusion. TKA provides improvement in function and satisfaction regardless of the type of implant. We could not demonstrate superiority of one design above others across these groups of implants, and any price premium for one above the other systems may not be justified. Healthcare administrators may find these similarities in outcomes helpful when negotiating purchasing contracts. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B(7 Supple C):48–54

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Aims. Little is known about the relative outcomes of revision of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) and high tibial osteotomy (HTO) to total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The aim of this study is to compare the outcomes of revision surgery for the two procedures in terms of complications, re-revision and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) at a minimum of two years follow-up. Patients and Methods. This study was a retrospective review of data from an institutional arthroplasty registry for cases performed between 2001 and 2014. A total of 292 patients were identified, of which 217 had a revision of HTO to TKA, and 75 had revision of UKA to TKA. While mean follow-up was longer for the HTO group compared with the UKA group, patient demographics (age, body mass index and Charlson co-morbidity index) and PROMs (Short Form-36, Oxford Knee Score, Knee Society Score, both objective and functional) were similar in the two groups prior to revision surgery. Outcomes included the rate of complications and re-operation, PROMS and patient-reported satisfaction at six months and two years post-operatively. We also compared the duration of surgery and the need for revision implants in the two groups. . Results . At two-year follow-up, both groups of patients had made significant improvement in terms of PROMs compared with pre-operative scores. PROMs and satisfaction rates were similar in the two groups. Complications requiring re-operation were significantly more frequent in the HTO group whilst more revision implants were used in the UKA group, resulting in a longer operative duration. . Conclusion. Revision of HTO and UKA achieve similar post-operative PROMs and satisfaction. Revision of UKA more frequently requires revision components with increased operation duration but fewer complications requiring re-operation compared with revision of HTO. . Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:1329–34