Purpose of the Study

To identify trends in patient satisfaction of their knee arthroplasty, total and unicompartmental, one year post primary knee arthroplasty surgery, with reference to age, gender and primary diagnosis, from 1990 to 2008.

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

A significant percentage of patients remain dissatisfied after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The aim of this study was to determine whether the sequential addition of accelerometer-based navigation for femoral component preparation and sensor-guided ligament balancing improved complication rates, radiological alignment, or patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) compared with a historical control group using conventional instrumentation.