Whether or not to resurface the patella in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) remains controversial. Several methods of dealing with the patella exist: ALWAYS resurface; NEVER resurface; SOMETIMES resurface. There is good reason to consider selective patellar resurfacing. First, in an age of partial knee arthroplasty we have become more tuned in to analyzing patterns of arthritis. In TKA there is a high percentage of patients who do not have significant patellar cartilage wear or anterolateral knee pain. These patients may be candidates for leaving the patella unresurfaced in TKA. Arno et al found that 42% of patients had no significant patellar arthritis at the time of TKA. Roberts et al found that only 15% of patients should undergo patella resurfacing based on the presence of exposed bone on the patella; the other 85% could be considered suitable for leaving the patella unresurfaced. Second, despite a cumulative incidence of less than 5–10%, problems related to patellar resurfacing account for perhaps the most catastrophic complications encountered, with treatments that have limited success. These complications include fracture, avascular necrosis, extensor mechanism disruption, and anterior knee pain. Third, it is a fallacy to think that anterior knee pain (AKP) does not exist despite primary patellar resurfacing in TKA. Meftah (Ranawat) et al found that AKP persists in 30% of patients and new AKP develops in 10% of patients after TKA with patellar resurfacing. Barrack et al found that with patellar resurfacing the incidence of AKP is 28% in patients without preop AKP and 9% in those with preop AKP. They also found that without patellar resurfacing the incidence of new AKP was 14% and persistent AKP was 23%. Fourth, only roughly 44–64% of patients who undergo secondary patellar resurfacing for AKP after TKA with an unresurfaced patella actually get relief of their pain, suggesting that there is some other etiology of anterior knee pain. Residual component malalignment, boxy femoral components, PF overstuffing, referred pain or asymmetric resurfacing may explain ongoing pain. Finally, the data in well-designed studies show that selective patellar resurfacing can produce similar outcomes with and without resurfacing, particularly in those without significant patellar arthritis. In multiple studies, higher rates of secondary surgery occur when the patella is left unresurfaced in primary TKA, but this is for “pain” without clear etiology. On the other hand secondary surgery is rarely performed in TKA with patellar resurfacing for “pain” only, despite its high incidence. The quality of patellar cartilage at the time of primary TKA should be considered, as that may be the best indicator of whether a knee will do well without patellar resurfacing (that is, selective patellar resurfacing may be a better idea than never resurfacing the patella). While patellar resurfacing remains controversial in modern TKA, excellent outcomes are achievable with, and without, primary patellar resurfacing. Selectively leaving the patella unresurfaced when there is limited patellar arthritis may not only be highly effective, but it may also limit the incidence of secondary resurfacing that may occur with more substantial patellar arthritis while also minimizing the risk of some of the devastating complications that can occur due to patellar resurfacing in TKA

Introduction. Patellar resurfacing is performed in more than 90% of primary total knee arthroplasties (TKAs) in the United States, yet far fewer patellae are resurfaced internationally. Multiple randomized controlled trials have shown decreased revision rates in patients with resurfaced patellas (RP) vs. non-resurfaced (NR). However, most of these studies showed no difference in patient satisfaction, anterior knee pain, or knee society scores. (Figure 1) Given uncertain benefits, the purpose of this study was to determine if the rates of patellar resurfacing have changed over the past 10 years worldwide. Methods. Data was obtained via direct correspondence with registry administrators or abstracted from the annual reports of six national joint registries: Australia, Denmark, England, New Zealand, Norway, and Sweden. Rates of patellar resurfacing between 2003 and 2013 were collected. Where data was available, subgroup analysis was performed to examine revision rates among RP and NR TKAs. Results. The average rates of patellar resurfacing from 2003 to 2013 ranged from 5% (Norway) to 71% (Denmark). Three countries showed a decreased rate of patellar resurfacing over this time period while two demonstrated an increase. The largest decrease in resurfacing rates was in Sweden (15% to 2%), while the biggest increase was in Australia (44% to 53%). (Figure 2) In 2010, 48,367 of 137,813 (35%) primary TKAs from all six countries were resurfaced. (Figure 3) Among RP and NR TKAs, Australia documented a 10-year cumulative revision rate (CRR) of 4.9% and 6.0%, respectively. Sweden showed a 10-year CRR of 4% in both groups. Conclusion. While not all national joint registries report rates of patellar resurfacing, it is clear that most countries outside of the US continue to resurface a much smaller proportion of patellas in primary TKA. Worldwide, the rates of patellar resurfacing have changed little in the past decade

Introduction. The degree of cartilage degeneration assessed intraoperatively may not be sufficient as a criterion for patellar resurfacing in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). However, single-photon emission tomography/computed tomography (SPECT/CT) is useful for detecting osteoarthritic involvement deeper in the subchondral bone. The purpose of the study was to determine whether SPECT/CT reflected the cartilage lesion underneath the patella in patients with end-stage osteoarthritis (OA) and whether clinical outcomes after TKA without patellar resurfacing differed according to the severity of patellofemoral (PF) OA determined by visual assessment and SPECT/CT findings. Methods. This study included 206 knees which underwent TKA. The degree of cartilage degeneration was graded intraoperatively according to the International Cartilage Repair Society grading system. Subjects were classified into four groups according to the degree of bone tracer uptake (BTU) on SPECT/CT in the PF joint. The Feller's patella score and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) were assessed preoperatively and postoperative 1 and 2 years. Results. The increased BTU in the PF joint was associated with more severe degenerative cartilage changes underneath the patella (P < 0.001). The risk for the presence of denudated cartilage was greater in the high uptake group (odds ratio = 5.89). There was no association between clinical outcomes and visual grading of patellar cartilage degeneration or the degree of BTU on SPECT/CT. Discussion and Conclusions. The visual assessment of the degree of cartilage degeneration underneath the patella and preoperative SPECT/CT evaluation of the PF joint were not predictive of clinical outcome after TKA with unresurfaced patella

Background. The decision to resurface the patella during total knee arthroplasty remains controversial. Aim of our study was to evaluate the functional difference between patients undergoing medial rotation knee (MRK) replacement with and without patellar resurfacing at our hospital. Methods. We did a retrospective analysis of patients undergoing MRK total knee replacement (Matortho) at our hospital between 2008 and 2017 performed by 2 surgeons. Patients were recalled for a clinical review from Oct 2017 for recording of Oxford knee, Baldini and Ferrel scores. Mann-Whitney U test was used for non-parametric data (SPSS v24). Results. Of the 104(49 males) patients, 62 had patellar resurfacing. Age and sex distribution was similar in both groups. The mean follow up period was 74.45 months in non- resurfaced group and 54.93 months in resurfaced group. The Median (Range) pre-operative Oxford knee scores were similar in both groups − 15(4–42) in non-resurfaced group and 14(1–44) in resurfaced group. The median OKS at follow-up were 36(12–47) in non-resurfaced group and 37(9–48) in resurfaced group. The Patellar scores were slightly better in the resurfaced group – Baldini score median (range) (90 (25–100) in non resurfaced v/s 100(30–100) in resurfaced), Ferrel score (median (range) 25(12–30) in non-resurfaced v/s 28(10–30) in resurfaced, p 0.042). The patellofemoral component of the OKS (Q5 + Q7 + Q12) median (range) showed an improvement from 3(1–11) to 6.5 (3–11) in non-resurfaced group and from 3(0–12) to 8 (2–12) (p 0.039) in resurfaced group. Conclusion. Although the overall functional knee scores in non-resurfaced and resurfaced groups were same, we found a statistically significant difference in Ferrel score and in the patellofemoral component of OKS between the 2 groups of MRK knee replacement suggesting specific benefits of patellar resurfacing

Introduction. We sought to determine the 10-year survivorship of single-radius, posterior-stabilized total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in Asian patients. We also aimed to determine whether the long-term clinical and radiographic results differed between patients with and without patellar resurfacing. Materials and Methods. This retrospective study included 148 (115 patients) consecutive single-radius, posterior-stabilized TKAs. Ten-year survivorship analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method with additional surgery for any reason as the end-point. Furthermore, long-term clinical and radiographic results of 109 knees (74%; 84 patients) with more than a 10-year follow-up were analyzed. Ten-year survivorship and long-term outcomes after surgery were determined, and outcomes were compared between patients with and without patellar resurfacing. Results. Cumulative survival rate of the single-radius posterior-stabilized TKA of 148 knees was 97.7% (95% confidence interval, 93.1%–99.3%) at 10 years after surgery. Three knees had additional surgery during the 10-year follow-up because of one case of instability and two periprosthetic infections. Mean postoperative Knee Society knee score and function score were 97 and 75, respectively. There was no aseptic loosening of the prosthesis, even though a non-progressive radiolucent line was found in 10 (9%) knees. There were no differences in postoperative scores and degree of patellar tilt and displacement between patients with and without patellar resurfacing. Conclusions. Single-radius, posterior-stabilized TKA showed satisfactory long-term clinical and radiographic outcomes in Asian patients regardless of patellar resurfacing, with comparable survivorship to that reported in westerners

INTRODUCTION. In computer-aided total knee arthroplasty (TKA), surgical navigation systems (SNS) allow accurate tibio-femoral joint (TFJ) prosthesis implantation only. Unfortunately, TKA alters also normal patello-femoral joint (PFJ) functioning. Particularly, without patellar resurfacing, PFJ kinematics is influenced by TFJ implantation; with resurfacing, this is further affected by patellar implantation. Patellar resurfacing is performed only by visual inspections and a simple calliper, i.e. without computer assistance. Patellar resurfacing and motion via patient-specific bone morphology had been assessed successfully in-vitro and in-vivo in pilot studies aimed at including these evaluations in traditional navigated TKA. The aim of this study was to report the current experiences in-vivo in two patient cohorts during TKA with patellar resurfacing. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Twenty patients with knee gonarthrosis were divided in two cohorts of ten subjects each and implanted with as many fixed-bearing posterior-stabilised prostheses (NRG® and Triathlon®, Stryker®-Orthopaedics, Mahwah, NJ-USA) with patellar resurfacing. Fifteen patients were implanted; five patients of the Triathlon cohort are awaiting hospital admission. TKAs were performed using two SNS (Stryker®-Leibinger, Freiburg-Germany). In addition to the traditional knee SNS (KSNS), the novel procedure implies the use of the patellar SNS (PSNS) equipped with a specially-designed patellar tracker. Standard navigated procedures for intact TFJ survey were performed using KSNS. These were performed also with PSNS together intact PFJ survey. Standard navigated procedures for TFJ implantation were performed using KSNS. During patellar resurfacing, the patellar cutting jig was fixed at the desired position with a plane probe into the saw-blade slot; PSNS captured tracker data to calculate bone cut level/orientation. After sawing, resection accuracy was assessed using a plane probe. TFJ/PFJ kinematics were captured with all three trial components in place for possible adjustments, and after final component cementing. A calliper and pre/post-TKA X-rays were used to check for patellar thickness/alignment. RESULTS. This protocol was performed successfully in TKAs, resulting in 30 min longer TKA. Final lower limb misalignment was within 0.5°, resurfaced patella was 0.4±1.2 mm thinner than the native, and patellar cut was 0.4°±4.1° laterally tilted. Final PFJ kinematics was taken within the reference normality in both series. PFJ flexion, tilt and medio-lateral shift range were 66.9°±8.5° (minimum÷maximum, 15.6°÷82.5°), 8.0°±3.1° (−5.3°÷2.8°), and 5.3±2.0 mm (−5.5÷0.2 mm), respectively. Significant (p<0.005) correlations were found between the internal/external rotation of the femoral component and PFJ tilt (R. 2. =0.41), and between the mechanical axis on the sagittal plane and PFJ flexion (R. 2. =0.44) and antero-posterior shift (R. 2. =0.45). Patellar implantation parameters were confirmed by X-ray inspections. Discrepancies in thickness up to 5 mm were observed between SNS- and calliper-based measurements. CONCLUSIONS. These results support relevance/efficacy of patellar tracking in in-vivo navigated TKA and may contribute to a more comprehensive assessment of the original whole knee, i.e. including also PFJ. Patellar preparation would be supported for suitable component positioning in case of resurfacing, but, conceptually, also in not-resurfacing if SNS does not reveal PFJ abnormalities., Using this procedure in the future, TFJ/PFJ abnormalities can be corrected intra-operatively by more cautious bone cut preparation and prosthetic positioning on the femur, tibia and patella

Background. The management of the patella during primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is controversial. Despite the majority of patients reporting excellent outcomes following TKA, a common complaint is anterior knee pain. Resurfacing of the patella at the time of initial surgery has been proposed as a means of preventing anterior knee pain, however current evidence, including four recent meta-analyses, has failed to show clear superiority of patellar resurfacing. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of patellar resurfacing compared to non-resurfacing in TKA. Methods. We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis using a decision analytic model to represent a hypothetical patient cohort undergoing primary TKA. Each patient will receive a TKA either with the Patella Resurfaced or Not Resurfaced. Following surgery, patients can transition to one of three chronic health states: 1) Well Post-operative, 2) Patellofemoral Pain (PFP), or 3) Serious Adverse Event (AE), which we have defined as any event requiring Revision TKA, including: loosening/lysis, infection, instability, or fracture (Figure 1). We obtained revision rates following TKA for both resurfaced and unresurfaced cohorts using data from the 2014 Australian Registry. This data was chosen due to similarities between Australian and North American practice patterns and patient demographics, as well as the availability of longer term follow up data, up to 14 years postoperative. Our effectiveness outcome for the model was the quality-adjusted life year (QALY). We used utility scores obtained from the literature to calculate QALYs for each health state. Direct procedure costs were obtained from our institution's case costing department, and the billing fees for each procedure. We estimated cost-effectiveness from a Canadian publicly funded health care system perspective. All costs and quality of life outcomes were discounted at a rate of 5%. All costs are presented in 2015 Canadian dollars. Results. Our cost-effectiveness analysis suggests that TKA with patella resurfacing is a dominant procedure. Patients who receive primary TKA with non-resurfaced patella had higher associated costs over the first 14 years postoperative ($16,182 vs $15,720), and slightly lower quality of life (5.37 QALYs vs 6.01 QALYs). The revision rate for patellar resurfacing was 1.3%. If the rate of secondary resurfacing procedures is 0.5% or less, there is no difference in costs between the two procedures. Discussion. Our results suggest that, up to 14 years postoperative, resurfacing the patella in primary TKA is cost-effective compared to primary TKA without patellar resurfacing, due to the higher revision rate in this cohort of patients for secondary resurfacing. Our sensitivity analysis suggests that, among surgical practices that do not routinely perform secondary resurfacing procedures (estimated rate at our institution is 0.3%) there is no significant difference in costs. Although our results suggest that patella resurfacing results in higher quality of life, our model is limited by the availability and validity of utility outcome estimates reported in the literature for the long term follow up of patients following TKA with or without patella resurfacing and secondary resurfacing procedures

Abstract. Background. Conventional TKR aims for neutral mechanical alignment which may result in a smaller lateral distal femoral condyle resection than the implant thickness. We aim to explore the mismatch between implant thickness and bone resection using 3D planning software used for Patient Specific Instrumentation (PSI) TKR. Methods. This is a retrospective anatomical study from pre-operative MRI 3D models for PSI TKR. Cartilage mapping allowed us to recreate the native anatomy, enabling us to quantify the mismatch between the distal lateral femoral condyle resection and the implant thickness. Results. We modelled 292 knees from PSI TKR performed between 2012 and 2015. There were 225 varus knees and 67 valgus knees, with mean supine hip-knee-angle of 5.6±3.1 degrees and 3.6±4.6 degrees, respectively. In varus knees, the mean cartilage loss from medial and lateral femoral condyle was 2.3±0.7mm and 1.1±0.8mm respectively; the mean overstuffing of the lateral condyle 1.9±2.2mm. In valgus knees, the mean cartilage loss from medial and lateral condyle was 1.4±0.8mm and 1.5±0.9mm respectively; the mean overstuffing of the lateral condyle was 4.1±1.9mm. Conclusions. Neutral alignment TKR often results in overstuffing of the lateral condyle. This may increase the patello-femoral pressure at the lateral facet in flexion. Anterior knee pain may be persistent even after patellar resurfacing due to tight lateral retinacular structures. An alternative method of alignment such as anatomic alignment may minimise this problem

During total knee replacement (TKR), surgical navigation systems (SNS) allow accurate prosthesis component implantation by tracking the tibio-femoral joint (TFJ) kinematics in the original articulation at the beginning of the operation, after relevant trial components implantation, and, ultimately, after final component implantation and cementation. It is known that TKR also alters normal patello-femoral joint (PFJ) kinematics resulting frequently in PFJ disorders and TKR failure. More importantly, patellar tracking in case of resurfacing is further affected by patellar bone preparation and relevant component positioning. The traditional technique used to perform patellar resurfacing, even in navigated TKR, is based only on visual inspection of the patellar articular aspect for clamping patellar cutting jig and on a simple calliper to check for patellar thickness before and after bone cut, and, thus, without any computer assistance. Even though the inclusion in in-vivo navigated TKR of a procedure for supporting also patellar resurfacing based on patient-specific bone morphology seems fundamental, this have been completely disregarded till now, whose efficacy being assessed only in-vitro. This procedure has been developed, together with relevant software and surgical instrumentation, as an extension of current SNS, i.e. TKR is navigated, at the same time measuring the effects of every surgical action on PFJ kinematics. The aim of this study was to report on the first in-vivo experiences during TKR with patellar resurfacing. Four patients affected by primary gonarthrosis were implanted with a fixed bearing posterior-stabilised prosthesis (NRG, Stryker®-Orthopaedics, Mahwah, NJ-USA) with patellar resurfacing. All TKR were performed by means of two SNS (Stryker®-Leibinger, Freiburg, Germany) with the standard femoral/tibial trackers, the pointer, and a specially-designed patellar tracker. The novel procedure for patellar tracking was approved by the local ethical committee; the patients gave informed consent prior the surgery. This procedure implies the use of a second system, i.e. the patellar SNS (PSNS), with dedicated software for supporting patellar resurfacing and relative data processing/storing, in addition to the traditional knee SNS (KSNS). TFJ anatomical survey and kinematics data are shared between the two. Before surgery, both systems were initialised and the patellar tracker was assembled with a sterile procedure by shaping a metal grid mounted with three markers to be tracked by PSNS only. The additional patellar-resection-plane and patellar-cut-verification probes were instrumented with a standard tracker and a relevant reference frame was defined on these by digitisation with PSNS. Afterwards, the procedures for standard navigation were performed to calculate preoperative joint deformities and TFJ kinematics. The anatomical survey was performed also with PSNS, with relevant patellar anatomical reference frame definition and PFJ kinematics assessment according to a recent proposal. Standard procedures for femoral and tibial component implantation, and TFJ kinematics assessment were then performed by using relevant trial components. Afterwards, the procedure for patellar resection begun. Once the surgeon had arranged and fixed the patellar cutting jig at the desired position, the patellar-resection-plane probe was inserted into the slot for the saw blade. With this in place, the PSNS captured tracker data to calculate the planned level of patellar bone cut and the patellar cut orientation. Then the cut was executed, and the accuracy of this actual bone cut was assessed by means of the patellar-cut-verification probe. The trial patellar component was positioned, and, with all three trial components in place, TFJ and PFJ kinematics were assessed. Possible adjustments in component positioning could still be performed, until both kinematics were satisfactory. Finally, final components were implanted and cemented, and final TFJ and PFJ kinematics were acquired. A sterile calliper and pre- and post-implantation lower limb X-rays were used to check for the patellar thickness and final lower limb alignment. The novel surgical technique was performed successfully in all four cases without complication, resulting in 30 min longer TKR. The final lower limb alignment was within 0.5°, the resurfaced patella was 0.4±1.3 mm thinner than in the native, the patellar cut was 1.5°±3.0° laterally tilted. PFJ kinematics was taken within the reference normality. The patella implantation parameters were confirmed also by X-ray inspection; discrepancies in thickness up to 5 mm were observed between SNS- and calliper-based measurements. At the present experimental phase, a second separate PSNS was utilised not to affect the standard navigated TKR. The results reported support relevance, feasibility and efficacy of patellar tracking and PFJ kinematics assessment in in-vivo navigated TKR. The encouraging in-vivo results may lay ground for the design of a future clinical patella navigation system the surgeon could use to perform a more comprehensive assessment of the original whole knee anatomy and kinematics, i.e. including also PFJ. Patellar bone preparation would be supported for suitable patellar component positioning in case of resurfacing but, conceptually, also in not resurfacing if patellar anatomy and tracking assessment by SNS reveals no abnormality. After suitable adjustment and further tests, in the future if this procedure will be routinely applied during navigated TKR, abnormalities at both TFJ and PFJ can be corrected intra-operatively by more cautious bone cut preparation on the femur, tibia and also patella, in case of resurfacing, and by correct prosthetic component positioning

Background. Despite the excellent clinical success of total knee arthroplasty (TAK), controversy remains concerning whether or not to resurface the patella. This has led to a number of randomized controlled trials. Randomized controlled trials constitute the most reliable source of evidence for the evaluation of the efficacy of a potential intervention. But most of these studies include all degree of osteoarthritis of the patellofemoral joint. So we did this prospective study to compare clinical and radiological outcomes after TKA with or without patellar resurfacing in patients with grade IV osteoarthritis on patellofemoral joint. Materials and Methods. 123 cases (93 patients) with Kellgren-Lawrence grade IV osteoarthritis on patellofemoral joint were enrolled for this study. At the operating room, they were randomly assigned to undergo patella resurfacing (62 cases) or patella retention (61 cases). Among them, 114 cases that could be followed for more than 2 years were included in this study (resurfacing group; 59 cases, retention group; 55 cases). When patellar retention was performed, osteophytes of the patella were removed and marginal electrocauterization was carried out. Preoperative and postoperative clinical outcomes were evaluated and compared regarding the Hospital for Special Surgery Patellar (HSSP) score (total 100 point; anterior knee pain, functional limitation, tenderness, crepitus, Q-strength). We also compared Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS) and WOMAC scores, and range of motion (ROM). We also compared radiological outcomes at the final follow up, with regards to mechanical axis of the lower limb, patella tilt and patella congruence angle between two groups. Results. Average HSSP score was 85 in resurfacing group, 83 in retention group, which were showing no significant differences between groups (p=.75). Anterior knee pain subscale also showed no significant differences between groups (40 in resurfacing group, 36 in retention group, p= 0.52). HSS score improved to 94 points in resurfacing group and 95 points in retention group showing no significant difference (p=.92). While WOMAC score and range of motion was 32 point and 128°±10.5° in resurfacing group, respectively, they were 29 point and 126°±11.5° in retention group, without significant inter-group difference (p>.05). There were no differences between two groups in mechanical axis of the lower limb and patella tilt, patella congruence (p>0.05). Conclusion. Clinical and radiological outcomes were ‘good’ after TKA with or without patellar resurfacing in patients with high grade osteoarthritis of the patellofemoral joint without significant differences. Thus, this study suggested that TKA without patellar resurfacing is a good treatment option in patients with high grade osteoarthritis of the patellofemoral joint

Introduction. Persistent anterior knee pain, subluxation or dislocation of the patella as well as early aseptic loosening and increased polyethylene wear of the patella implant are common clinical problems after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) which are associated with the patellofemoral joint. In addition to patellar resurfacing, the design of the patellofemoral joint surfaces is attributed a large influence. While for patients without patella resurfacing, the native patella is sliding on the standardized femoral component and therefore the possibility of a reduced surface matching is high, patella resurfacing has been shown to decrease the joint contact area and yield to increased patellofemoral pressure. With regard to a further design optimization, the current study examined patellar biomechanics after TKA without and with resurfacing, comparing 5 differently designed patellofemoral joint surfaces of the femoral implant. Methods. The femoral implant of the Genesis II prosthesis (Smith & Nephew) was scanned and an adaptable CAD-model was built using CATIA. Five different designs of the patellofemoral groove were created:. original. completely flat. laterally elevated (+2mm lateral, −1mm medial). medially elevated (+2mm medial, −1mm lateral). laterally & medially elevated (+3mm lateral+medial). The tibiofemoral joint as well as patellofemoral groove path and radius remained unchanged. Rapid Prototyping was used to produce prototypes made of polyamide. A dynamic muscle loaded knee squat was simulated on 10 fresh frozen knee specimens with an upright knee simulator. The patellofemoral pressure distribution was measured using a flexible, resistive force sensor (TEKSCAN) while tibiofemoral and patellofemoral kinematics were recorded with an ultrasonic motion tracking system (ZEBRIS). In addition, patellar stability was measured in different flexion angles on another 10 specimens using a robot (KUKA). Measurements were taken on the native knee as well as after TKA and after additional patellar resurfacing with alternating femoral implant. Results. Considering patellofemoral kinematics, the largest influence was found for the flat design where increased lateral tilt (up to 6°) and medial shift (up to 5mm) were measured after TKA compared to the native knee. Similar results were achieved for patellar stability, where increased lateral displacement (up to +6mm) was measured for the flat design. The other designs only had a small effect on patellar kinematics and patellar lateral stability. Regarding maximal peak pressure, on average, only a small influence of the designs was found. However, for the individual knee specimens, the pressure distribution and peak pressures varied clearly among the different designs. After additional patellar resurfacing, patellofemoral peak pressures significantly increased (almost doubled), but for the different designs, similar results as before were achieved regarding patellar kinematics, stability and pressures. Conclusions. Increased mediolateral motion was found for the flat design compared to the others and the native knee concluding that a moderate groove is necessary but also sufficient to guarantee stable motion. Especially for maximal patellofemoral peak pressures, large individual differences between the designs were measured while the average influence was small. Therefore, an individual choice between some standard implants might be an interesting option, if appropriate criteria can be found

Whether to resurface the patella during a primary Total Knee Replacement (TKR) performed as a treatment of degenerative osteoarthritis remain a controversial issue. Patellar resurfacing was introduced because early implants were not designed to accommodate the native patella in an anatomic fashion during the range of motion. Complications related to patella resurfacing became a primary concern and have been associated with the variable revision rates often report post TKR. Subsequent modifications in implant design have been made to offer the surgeon option of leaving the patella un-resurfaced. Numerous clinical trials have been done to determine the superiority of each option. Unfortunately, there is little consensus and surgeon preference remains the primary variable. One of the major reasons given to support patella resurfacing is to eliminate Anterior Knee Pain post operatively. However, studies have shown that this problem was not exclusively found in non-resurfaced patients so the author conclude that anterior knee pain is probably related to component design or to the details of the surgical technique, such as component rotation rather that whether or not the patella is resurfaced. An increasing rate of complications with the extensor mechanism after patellar resurfacing led to the concept of selective resurfacing of the patella in TKR. Decision making algorithms with basis of clinical, radiographic and intraoperative parameters have been developed to determine which patients are suitable for patella resurfacing and which are suitable for patella non-resurfacing. Finally, the continued study of this topic with longer follow up term in randomized, controlled, clinical trials remains essential in our understanding of patella in TKR. The development of joint registry will allow surgeons to draw conclusions on the basis of larger numbers of patients and will improve the reporting of the results of patellar non resurfacing in clinical trials. In general, surgeons in United States always resurface while their counterparts in Europe tend to never resurface

Patellar resurfacing in total knee arthroplasty remains controversial. We report the medium term results of patients who had Scorpio total knee replacement for osteoarthritis between January 2002 and September 2004. A retrospective review of 118 patients was undertaken. All patients during the first half of this time period had no resurfacing of the patella, and all patients in the later half of this period underwent resurfacing of the patella. The mean follow-up in the non-resurfaced group was 30 months and the mean follow-up in the resurfaced group was 17 months. The two groups were similar in age, gender and the grade of the surgeon. Knee society clinical rating score, patient satisfaction, anterior knee pain, patellofemoral questionnaires, patellofemoral revision rates and success in returning to normal daily activities were noted. There was a significant difference between the two groups in the patellar revision rates, anterior knee pain and Euroquol scores. The incidence of anterior knee pain in the patella non-resurfaced group was 23%, compared to 6% in the resurfaced group [p<0.05]. The rate of revision in the non-resurfaced group was 11% compared to 0% in the resurfaced group [p=0.03]. The mean Euroquol score in the resurfaced group was 86.44 compared to 80.35 [p=0.04]. Knee Society score, patient satisfaction, symptoms of patellar apprehension and knee instability, return to pre-op functional level, ability to kneel, use of a walking aid, presence of limp and satisfaction with operation as not statistically different between the two groups. In view of the statistically significant difference in the incidence of anterior knee pain and the rate of revision in the group of patients without patellar resurfacing, the authors suggest that retaining the patellar surface may not be a viable option. Although an appropriate design for the femoral prosthetic trochlea is an important factor, a good surgical technique with patellar resurfacing is more likely to result in predictable satisfactory results. We feel that high contact pressures between the non-resurfaced patellae and the prosthetic femoral trochlea can be generated after a total knee replacement when the patella is not resurfaced, and can thus result in patients having anterior knee pain

It is a not so uncommon clinical scenario: well-fixed, well-aligned, balanced total knee arthroplasty with continued pain. However, radiographs also demonstrate an unresurfaced patella. The debate continues and the controversy remains as whether or not to routinely resurface the patella in total knee arthroplasty. In perhaps the most widely referenced article on the topic, the overall revision rates were no different between the resurfaced (9%) and the unresurfaced (12%) groups and thus their conclusion was that similar results can be obtained with and without resurfacing. However, a deeper look in to the data in this study shows that 4 times more knees in the unresurfaced group were revised for patellofemoral problems. A more recent study concluded that selectively not resurfacing the patella provided similar results when compared to routinely resurfacing. The study does emphasise however, that this conclusion depends greatly on femoral component design and operative diagnoses. This suggests that selective resurfacing with a so-called “patella friendly” femoral component in cases of tibio-femoral osteoarthritis, is a safe and effective strategy. Finally, registry data would support routine resurfacing with a 2.3 times higher relative risk of revision seen in the unresurfaced TKA. Regardless of which side of the debate one lies, the not so uncommon clinical scenario remains; what do we do with the painful TKA with an unresurfaced patella. Precise and accurate diagnosis of the etiology of a painful TKA can be very difficult, and there is likely a strong bias towards early revision with secondary patellar resurfacing in the painful TKA with an unresurfaced TKA. At first glance, secondary resurfacing is associated with relatively poor outcomes. Correia, et al. reported that only half the patients underwent revision TKA with secondary resurfacing had resolution of their complaints. Similarly, only 53% of patients in another series were satisfied with the procedure and pain relief. The conclusions that can be drawn from these studies and others are that either routine patellar resurfacing should be performed in all TKA or, perhaps more importantly, we need to better understand the etiology of pain in an otherwise well-aligned, well-balanced, well-fixed TKA. It is this author's contingency that the presence of an unresurfaced patella leads surgeons to reoperate earlier, without truly identifying the etiology of pain or dissatisfaction. This strong bias; basically there is something more that can be done, therefore we should do it, is the same bias that leads to early revision of partial knee arthroplasty. While very difficult, we as knee surgeons should not revise a partial knee or secondarily resurface a patella due to pain or dissatisfaction. Doing so, unfortunately, only works about half the time. The diagnostic algorithm for evaluating the painful, uresurfaced TKA includes routinely ruling out infection with serum markers and an aspiration. Pre-arthroplasty radiographs should be obtained to confirm suitability and severity of disease for an arthroplasty. An intra-articular diagnostic injection with Marcaine +/− corticosteroid should provide significant pain relief. MARS MRI may be beneficial to evaluate edema within the patella. Lastly, operative implant stickers to confirm implant manufacturer and type are critical as some implants perform less favorably with unresurfaced patellae. To date, no studies of secondary resurfacing describe the results of this, or similar, algorithms for defining patellofemoral problems in the unresurfaced TKA and therefore it is still difficult to conclude that poor results are not simply due to our inherent bias towards early revision and secondary resurfacing of the unresurfaced patella

Some DEFINITIONS are necessary: “STEMS” refers to “intramedullary stem extensions”, which may be of a variety of lengths and diameters, fixed with cement, porous coating or press fit alone and which may be modular or an inherent part of the prosthesis. The standard extension keel on the tibia does not qualify as a “stem (extension)”. COMPLEX implies multiple variables acting on the end result of the arthroplasty with the capability of inducing failure, as well as necessary variations to the standard surgical technique. A lesser degree of predictability is implied. More specifically, the elements usually found in an arthritic knee and used for the arthroplasty are missing, so that cases of COMPLEX primary TKA include: Soft tissue coverage-(not relevant here), Extensor mechanism deficiency-patellectomy, Severe deformity, Extra-articular deformity, Instability: Varus valgus, Instability: Plane of motion, Instability: Old PCL rupture, Dislocated patella, Stiffness, Medical conditions: Neuromuscular disorder, Ipsilateral arthroplasty, Prior incisions, Fixation hardware, Osteopenia, Ipsilateral hip arthrodesis, Ipsilateral below knee amputation, etc. Complexity includes MORE than large deformity, i.e., success with large deformity does NOT mean success with constrained implants regardless of indication. In addition, the degree of constraint must be specified to be meaningful. NECESSARY presumably this means: “necessary to ensure durable fixation in the face of poor bone quality or more mechanically constrained” and SUFFICIENT suggests that stems, by themselves or in some shape of form, by themselves “will ensure success (specifically here) of fixation”. If we can start with the second proposal, that STEMS are SUFFICIENT for success the answer is: “NO”, many more aspects of surgical technique and implant design are required. Even if all other aspects of the technique are exemplary, some types of stems or techniques are inadequate, e.g., completely uncemented, short stem extensions. The answer to the first proposal is: “YES, in many cases”. The problem will be to determine which cases. There are philosophical analogies to this question that we already know the answer to. ANALOGY: Is a life-raft necessary on a boat? Yes, you may not use it, but it is considered necessary. Is a life-raft “sufficient” on a boat? No, other problems may occur. Are seat belts necessary? Are child seats necessary? The AAOS already has a position on child restraints, an analogous situation, where a party who cannot control their situation (anesthetised patient/ child) functions in the care of a responsible party. The objection may be argued in terms of cost saving by NOT using increased fixation. A useful analogy, (that would of course require specific analysis), is that of patellar resurfacing: universal resurfacing is cost-effective when considering the expense of even a small number of secondary resurfacings. Of course a complex arthroplasty that requires a revision procedure is far more expensive than secondary patellar resurfacing and so universal use of the enhanced fixation in the face of increased constraint makes sense. The human cost of revision surgery tips the balance irrefutably. DANGER-We must avoid the glib conclusion, often based on poor quality data, that constrained implants do not need additional intramedullary fixation (with stem extensions). When “complexity” is involved, complex analysis is appropriate to select the best course

When dealing with the patella in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) there are three philosophies. Some advocate resurfacing in all cases, others do not resurface, and a third group selectively resurfaces the patella. The literature does not offer one clear and consistent message on the topic. Treatment of the patella and the ultimate result is multifactorial. Factors include the patient, surgical technique, and implant design. With respect to the patient, inflammatory versus non-inflammatory arthritis, pre-operative presence or absence of anterior knee pain, age, sex, height, weight, and BMI affect results of TKA. Surgical technique steps to enhance the patellofemoral articulation include: 1) Restore the mechanical axis to facilitate patellofemoral tracking. 2) Select the appropriate femoral component size with respect to the AP dimension of the femur. 3) When performing anterior chamfer resection, measure the amount of bone removed in the center of the resection and compare to the prosthesis. Do not overstuff the patellofemoral articulation by taking an inadequate amount of bone. 4) Rotationally align the femur appropriately using a combination of the AP axis, the transepicondylar axis, the posterior condylar axis, and the tibial shaft axis. 5) If faced with whether to medialise or lateralise the femoral component, always lateralise. This will enhance patellofemoral tracking. 6) When resurfacing the patella, only evert the patella after all other bony resections have been performed. Remove peripheral osteophytes and measure the thickness of the patella prior to resection. Make every effort to leave at least 15 mm of bone and never leave less than 13 mm. 7) Resect the patella. The presenter prefers a freehand technique using the insertions of the patellar tendon and quadriceps tendon as a guide, sawing from inferior to superior, then from medial to lateral to ensure a smooth, flat, symmetrical resection. Medialise the patellar component and measure the thickness of reconstruction. 8) When not resurfacing the patella, surgeons generally remove all the peripheral osteophytes, and some perform denervation using electrocautery around the perimeter. 9) Determine appropriate patellofemoral tracking only after the tourniquet is released. 10) Close the knee in flexion so as not to tether the soft tissues about the patella and the extensor. With or without patellar resurfacing, implant design plays in important role in minimizing patellofemoral complications. Newer designs feature a so-called “swept back” femur in which the chamfer resection is deepened, and patellofemoral overstuffing is minimised. Lateralizing the trochlear groove on the anterior flange, orienting it in valgus alignment, and gradually transitioning to midline have improved patellofemoral tracking. Extending the trochlear groove as far as possible into the tibiofemoral articulation has decreased patellofemoral crepitation and patellar clunk in posterior stabilised designs. With respect to the tibial component, providing patellar relief anteriorly in the tibial polyethylene has facilitated range of motion and reduced patellar impingement in deep flexion. On the patella side, the all-polyethylene patella remains the gold standard. While data exist to support all three viewpoints in the treatment of the patella in TKA, it is the presenter's opinion that the overwhelming data support patella resurfacing at the time of primary TKA. It is clear from the literature that the status of the patellofemoral articulation following TKA is multifactorial. Surgical technique and implant design are key to a well-functioning patellofemoral articulation. Pain is the primary reason patients seek to undergo TKA. Since our primary goal is to relieve pain, and there has been a higher incidence of anterior knee pain reported without patellar resurfacing, why not resurface the patella?

Introduction. Patellar resurfacing during Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA) is controversial. Problems unique to patellar resurfacing may be influenced by available patellar component design. These issues include; over-stuffing (the creation of a composite patellar-prosthesis thickness greater than the native patella) that may contribute to reduced range of motion; and over-resection of the native patellar bone that may contribute to post-operative fracture. Prosthesis design may play a role in contributing to these problems. Component diameter and thickness are quite variable from one manufacturer to another and little information has been previously published about optimal component dimensions. This anatomic study was performed to define the native patellar anatomy of patients undergoing TKA, in order to guide future component design. Methods. This retrospective, IRB approved study reviewed 797 Caucasian knees that underwent primary TKA by a single surgeon. Data recorded for each patient included: gender; patellar thickness before and after resurfacing, and the size of the component that provided the greatest patellar coverage without any overhang. The residual patellar bone thickness after resection was also calculated. Results. Mean (SD) native patellar thickness was 25.24 mm (2.11) in males, versus 22.13 mm (1.89) in females (P = <0.001). 84 of 483 females (17 %) had a native patellar thickness less than or equal to 20 mm. Only 3 male patients had a native patellar thickness less than or equal to 20 mm (1%). 374 females (78%) could only accommodate a round patellar button less than or equal to 32 mm. Conclusions. These findings suggest that patellar component design can be improved for Caucasian female patients. Round components between 26 and 32 mm that measure no more than 7 mm thick would be required to avoid systematic over-stuffing or over-resection of the native patellar in female patients. Most contemporary knee systems do not meet these needs

Introduction. Opponents of patellar resurfacing during Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA) note unique complications associated with resurfacing. Problems include over-stuffing (the creation of a composite patellar-prosthesis thickness greater than the native patella) that may contribute to reduced range of motion; and creation of a patellar remnant that is too thin (in order to avoid over-stuffing) that may contribute to post-operative fracture. Factors including surgical technique, prosthesis design and patient anatomy may contribute to these problems. This study was performed to define the native patellar anatomy, and to compare the effect of differences in component thickness between manufacturers. Methods. This retrospective, IRB approved study reviewed 803 knees that underwent primary TKA between 2005 and 2011 with a single surgeon. Patellar resurfacing was performed with a round, polyethylene component from one of two different implant designs using the same surgical technique. Data recorded for each patient included: gender; patellar thickness before and after resurfacing; the dimensions and manufacturer of the prosthesis. The residual patellar bone thickness after resection was calculated. Results. Mean (SD) native patellar thickness was 25.24mm (2.11) in males, versus 22.13mm (1.89) in females (P = <0.001). 47/313 (15%) of males had increases in the composite patellar thickness after resurfacing, versus 120/480 (25%) of females (P < 0.001). 123/480 (26%) of females had a residual patella thickness <= 13mm, versus 12/313 (4%) of males (P <0.001). Finally, 79/265 (30%) of patients with a patellar prosthesis from manufacturer B had increases in the composite thickness, versus 88/522 (17%) of patients with manufacturer A (P < 0.001). Conclusions. Both patient gender (due to smaller native patellae in females) and prosthesis design (thicker components from manufacturer B) are risk factors for over-stuffing of the patella or over-resection of the patella. These findings suggest that patellar component design can be improved for female patients

Introduction. Persistent patellofemoral (PF) pain is a common postoperative complication after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). In the USA, patella resurfacing is conducted in more than 80% of primary TKAs [1], and is, therefore, an important factor during surgery. Studies have revealed that the position of the patellar component is still controversially discussed [2–4]. However, only a limited number of studies address the biomechanical impact of patellar component malalignment on PF dynamics [2]. Hence, the purpose of our present study was to analyze the effect of patellar component positioning on PF dynamics by means of musculoskeletal multibody simulation in which a detailed knee joint model resembled the loading of an unconstrained cruciate-retaining (CR) total knee replacement (TKR) with dome patella button. Material and Methods. Our musculoskeletal multibody model simulation of a dynamic squat motion bases on the SimTK data set (male, 88 years, 66.7 kg) [5] and was implemented in the multibody dynamics software SIMPACK (V9.7, Dassault Systèmes Deutschland GmbH, Gilching, Germany). The model served as a reference for our parameter analyses on the impact on the patellar surfacing, as it resembles an unconstrained CR-TKR (P.F.C. Sigma, DePuy Synthes, Warsaw, IN) while offering the opportunity for experimental validation on the basis of instrumented implant components [5]. Relevant ligaments and muscle structures were considered within the model. Muscle forces were calculated using a variant of the computed muscle control algorithm. PF and tibiofemoral (TF) joints were modeled with six degrees of freedom by implementing a polygon-contact model, enabling roll-glide kinematics. Relative to the reference model, we analyzed six patellar component alignments: superior-inferior position, mediolateral position, patella spin, patella tilt, flexion-extension and thickness. The effect of each configuration was evaluated by taking the root-mean-square error (RMSE) of the PF contact force, patellar shift and patellar tilt with respect to the reference model along knee flexion angle. Results. The analysis showed that the PF contact force was mostly affected by patellar component thickness (RMSE=440 N) as well as superior-inferior (RMSE=199 N), and mediolateral (RMSE=98 N) positioning.. PF kinematics was mostly affected by mediolateral positioning, patellar component thickness, and superior-inferior positioning. Medialization of the patellar component reduced the peak PF contact force and caused a lateral patellar shift. Discussion. Based on our findings, we conclude that malalignment in mediolateral and superior-inferior direction, tilt and thickness of patellar resurfacing are the most important intraoperative parameters to affect PF dynamics. It could be shown that the translational positioning is more critical than rotational positioning regarding PF contact force. Reported findings are in good agreement with previous experimental and clinical studies [2–4]. Our data reveal that patellar component positioning has to be aligned precisely during total knee arthroplasty to prevent postoperative complications. For any figures or tables, please contact authors directly

Stiffness remains one of the most common, and challenging postoperative complications after TKA. Preoperative motion and diagnosis can influence postoperative motion, and careful patient counseling about expectations is important. Postoperative stiffness should be evaluated by ruling out infections, metal allergy, or too aggressive physical therapy. A careful physical and radiographic examination is required. Manipulation under anesthesia (MUA) in selected cases can be helpful. The best timing to perform MUA is between the 6th and 10th week postoperatively. Careful technique is required to minimise the risk of fracture or soft tissue injury. This requires complete paralysis! For more chronic stiffness, revision may be indicated if an etiology can be identified. An excessively thick patellar resurfacing, an overstuffed tibia insert, an oversized femoral component, or gross malrotation should be corrected. During revision, thorough synovectomy, release of contractures, ligamentous balancing and restoration of the joint line is required. Careful attention to component rotation, and sizing is critical. Downsizing components is helpful to place less volume into the joint space. Patients should be counseled that the results of revision for stiffness are mixed and somewhat unpredictable. More frequent postoperative nurturing is helpful to guide rehabilitation progress. Manipulation after revision at 6 weeks is almost expected