Aims

The aim of this study was to describe the pattern of revision indications for unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and any change to this pattern for UKA patients over the last 20 years, and to investigate potential associations to changes in surgical practice over time.

Abstract

Abstract. Introduction. The number of total knee replacements (TKRs) performed continues to increase and is marked in patients under the age of 60. Increased number of younger patients raises concerns about potentially increased rates of implant failure or revision. Previous studies used small cohorts with only short to medium term follow-up. This study is the largest of its kind reporting long term outcomes and clinical survivorship of patients 50 years or less undergoing TKR. Methods. This is a retrospective cohort study using data from the Scottish Arthroplasty Project. A total of 3727 patients 50 years or less undergoing TKR between 2000 and 2019. Data was also collected for the same time period on patients aged 50–79 years undergoing TKR for comparison. Results. Mean age for under 50 years cohort at initial TKR was 45.4 years. Primary reason for TKR was osteoarthritis (3025 cases) and 321 revisions were performed. The primary reason for revision was aseptic loosening (206 cases), or infection (18 cases). Average time to revision was 5.5 years. In the 50–79 years cohort, average age was 67.5 years. Primary reason for TKR was osteoarthritis (87776 cases) and 2997 revisions were performed. Principle reason for revision was infection (256 cases), or aseptic loosening (2042 cases). Average time to revision was 4 years. Conclusion. This study suggests long-term outcome of patients aged 50 years or less undergoing TKR remain promising. Patients should be aware of relatively higher rates of aseptic loosening requiring revision in patients aged 50 years or less undergoing TKR

Aims. To map literature on prognostic factors related to outcomes of revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA), to identify extensively studied factors and to guide future research into what domains need further exploration. Methods. We performed a systematic literature search in MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science. The search string included multiple synonyms of the following keywords: "revision TKA", "outcome" and "prognostic factor". We searched for studies assessing the association between at least one prognostic factor and at least one outcome measure after rTKA surgery. Data on sample size, study design, prognostic factors, outcomes, and the direction of the association was extracted and included in an evidence map. Results. After screening of 5,660 articles, we included 166 studies reporting prognostic factors for outcomes after rTKA, with a median sample size of 319 patients (30 to 303,867). Overall, 50% of the studies reported prospectively collected data, and 61% of the studies were performed in a single centre. In some studies, multiple associations were reported; 180 different prognostic factors were reported in these studies. The three most frequently studied prognostic factors were reason for revision (213 times), sex (125 times), and BMI (117 times). Studies focusing on functional scores and patient-reported outcome measures as prognostic factor for the outcome after surgery were limited (n = 42). The studies reported 154 different outcomes. The most commonly reported outcomes after rTKA were: re-revision (155 times), readmission (88 times), and reinfection (85 times). Only five studies included costs as outcome. Conclusion. Outcomes and prognostic factors that are routinely registered as part of clinical practice (e.g. BMI, sex, complications) or in (inter)national registries are studied frequently. Studies on prognostic factors, such as functional and sociodemographic status, and outcomes as healthcare costs, cognitive and mental function, and psychosocial impact are scarce, while they have been shown to be important for patients with osteoarthritis. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(5):338–356

Abstract. Introduction. Revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) in elderly patients (>85 years) is associated with increased mortality, hospital stay and a high rate (55%) of complications. The objective was to assess PROMs in elderly patients undergoing rTKA. Methods. A retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients undergoing rTKA at an arthroplasty centre from 2001–2022 were compared to a control group (aged 50–79y) matched for gender, diagnosis & surgery year. The commonest reasons for revision in elderly patients was aseptic loosening (53/100), infection (21/100) and fracture (7/100). One-year patient-reported outcome data was available for 64%. Results. 100 patients underwent rTKA with a mean age of 84 years (range 80–97 years, SD 3) compared to a matched control group of younger patients (mean age 69y). Preoperative function was poor, with a mean Oxford knee score (OKS) of 40/100 in elderly and 43/100 in younger patients (p=0.164). At one-year postop, mean OKS was comparable between elderly and young patients (81 and 84/100 respectively, p=0.289). The number of patients with severe pain at one year was also comparable (4% elderly and 7% young respectively, p=0.177). The improvement in OKS for elderly patients was sustained at three (82 95% CI 58–100, 14/100 known) and five years. Overall complication rate was 54%. 14% were dead at 1 year and 56% were dead at five-years. Conclusion. Elderly patients undergoing elective revision TKA show a mean improvement in Oxford knee score of +38 at one year. This is the same as younger patients and is sustained at three and five years

Introduction. The number of medial unicompartmental knee replacements (UKR) performed for arthritis has increased and as such, revisions to total knee replacement (TKR) is increasing. Previous studies have investigated survivorship of UKR to TKR revision and functional outcomes compared to TKR to TKR revision, but have failed to detail the surgical considerations involved in these revisions. Our objectives are to investigate the detailed surgical considerations involved in UKR to TKR revisions. Methods. This study is a retrospective comparative analysis of a prospectively collected database. From 2005 to 2017, 61 revisions of UKR to TKR were completed at a single center. Our inclusion criteria included: revision of UKR to TKR or TKR to TKR with minimum 1 year follow-up. Our exclusion criteria include: single component and liner revisions and revision for infection. The 61 UKR to TKR revisions were matched 2:1 with respect to age, ASA and BMI to a group of 122 TKR to TKR revisions. The following data was collected: indication for and time to revision, operative skin to skin surgical time, the use of specialized equipment (augment size/location, stem use), intraoperative and postoperative complications, re-operations and outcome scores (WOMAC, Oxford 12, SF 12, satisfaction score). Results. There were no statistical differences between the demographic data from either group (age, BMI, ASA, sex and follow-up range). Progression of arthritis was the most common reason for revision in the UKR to TKR group (30/61, 49%, p < 0.001). Aseptic loosening was the most common reason for revision in the TKR to TKR group (73/122, 60%,) and was encountered more often than aseptic loosening in the UKR to TKR group (21/61, 35%, p=0.002). The operative time was longer in the TKR to TKR group (77 vs 112 min, p< 0.001). Femoral augmentation was required for one 1/61 (1.64%) UNI and 92/122 (75%) TKR revisions, respectively (p <0.001). Medial tibial augments were required in 9/61 (14.8%) of the UKR to TKR group while 12/122 (10%) and 10/122 (8%) of the TKR to TKR group required medial and full tibial augments, respectively (p=0.7). UKR to TKR revisions never required femoral stems while 120/122 (98%) of the TKR to TKR group did (p<0.001). Tibial stems were required in 19/61 (31%) and 122/122 (100%) of UKR to TKR and TKR to TKR groups, respectively (p<0.001). There was no statistical difference in the overall complication rate of either group (15% in the UKR to TKR group and 13% in the TKR to TKR group, p = 0.9). Stiffness was a common complication of UKR to TKR and TKR to TKR re-revisions at 2/61 (3%), and 6/122 (5%), respectively (P = 0.6). Aseptic loosening was also a common complication of in both groups at 2/61 (3%) and 4/122 (3%) in the UKR to TKR and TKR to TKR groups, respectively (p = 0.7). There was no statistical difference in the re-operation rate of either group (10% in the UKR to TKR group and 7% in the TKR to TKR group, P = 1). Stiffness was the most common indication for re-operation in the UKR to TKR group (2/61, 3%, p = 0.11) while aseptic loosening was the most common in the TKR to TKR group (4/122, 3.2%, p = 0.7). The survivorship in the UKR to TKR was 93% and 90% at 5 and 9 years, respectively. The survivorship in the TKR to TKR group was 95% and 94% at 5 and 9 years, respectively, which was not statistically different from the UKR group. Discussion. The most common reason for revision was different between the two groups (p < 0.001) while the skin to skin time was longer in the TKR to TKR group. In terms of revision components, femoral stems were never required in the UKR to TKR group while tibial stems were only required in 31%. Similarly, medial tibial augments were only required in 15% of the UKR to TKR group. While the surgeon must be prepared to use augmentation and stems in UKR to TKR revisions, they can often be completed with primary components and therefor will have an overall lower cost to the health care system. Furthermore, the survivorship and re-operation between the two groups was similar which supports previous literature. The results of this study will allow for a more in-depth cost-effectiveness analysis of UKR to TKR vs TKR to TKR in arthroplasty decision making. Unicompartmental knee replacements should be considered in appropriate patients to decrease the lifetime cost of arthroplasty intervention and potentially decrease the burden on the health care system. For figures, tables, or references, please contact authors directly

Aims. To establish our early clinical results of a new total knee arthroplasty (TKA) tibial component introduced in 2013 and compare it to other designs in use at our hospital during the same period. Methods. This is a retrospective study of 166 (154 patients) consecutive cemented, fixed bearing, posterior-stabilized (PS) TKAs (ATTUNE) at one hospital performed by five surgeons. These were compared with a reference cohort of 511 knees (470 patients) of other designs (seven manufacturers) performed at the same hospital by the same surgeons. There were no significant differences in age, sex, BMI, or follow-up times between the two cohorts. The primary outcome was revision performed or pending. Results. In total, 19 (11.5%) ATTUNE study TKAs have been revised at a mean 30.3 months (SD 15), and loosening of the tibial component was seen in 17 of these (90%). Revision is pending in 12 (7%) knees. There was no difference between the 31 knees revised or with revision pending and the remaining 135 study knees in terms of patient characteristics, type of bone cement (p = 0.988), or individual surgeon (p = 0.550). In the reference cohort, there were significantly fewer knees revised (n = 13, 2.6%) and with revision pending (n = 8, 1.5%) (both p < 0.001), and only two had loosening of the tibial component as the reason for revision. Conclusion. This new TKA design had an unexpectedly high early rate of revision compared with our reference cohort of TKAs. Debonding of the tibial component was the most common reason for failure. Additional longer-term follow-up studies of this specific component and techniques for implantation are warranted. The version of the ATTUNE tibial component implanted in this study has undergone modifications by the manufacturer. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(6 Supple A):137–144

Background. As the number of total knee arthroplasties (TKA) being performed continues to increase, the number of potential failures requiring revision surgery would also be expected to increase. This study analyzed the trends in revision TKA (rTKA) from 2009 to 2016. Methods. The Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) database was used to identify all rTKA by International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) and Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes. The diagnoses leading to revision, revision costs, patient and hospital characteristics, and major inpatient complications were compared between 2009 and 2016. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to calculate odds ratios (OR) for complications. Results. A total of 453,770 rTKA were performed between 2009 and 2016 (Table 1). The incidence of rTKA between 2009 and 2016 decreased by 4.3% among all age groups and decreased 5.9% in those over 65 years of age. The mean age at revision remained unchanged at 65 years, the mean Length of Stay (LOS) decreased 19.5% from 4.1 to 3.3 days (p<0.001), and the mean hospital costs increased 18.7% from $23,103 to $27,427 (p<0.001). Male to Female ratio remained unchanged with Females making up 58% of rTKA. The rTKA patients in 2016 versus 2009 had significantly lower odds of requiring a blood transfusion (OR 0.26, p<0.001). The rate of myocardial infarction remained unchanged in 2016 versus 2009 (4.1% vs. 4.0%, p=0.52), as did mortality (0.1% vs. 0.2%, p=0.089). Patients in 2016 were significantly less likely to be discharged to a skilled nursing facility (SNF) (26.5% in 2016 vs. 31.6% in 2009, p<0.001). A significantly larger share of rTKA were performed in urban teaching hospitals in 2016 (66.6% in 2016 vs. 41.5% in 2009, p<0.001). Mechanical loosening remained the most common reason for rTKA and increased from 19.7% in 2009 to 28.4% in 2016. Infection remained the second most common reason for rTKA (14.7% in 2009 vs. 12.2% in 2016). Instability was the third most common reason for revision in 2016 (10.7%) but direct comparison with 2009 could not be made since ICD-9 did not include this diagnosis. When comparing 2009 to 2014, an increase in revision rates was noted. Upon inclusion of 2015 and 2016 data, a decrease is noted. The primary limitation of this study is the challenge faced when comparing results from before and after the October 2015 transition of ICD-9 to ICD-10 codes. Conclusions. The incidence of rTKA had decreased slightly between 2009 and 2016 even while the volume of primary TKA continued to rise. Implant loosening became increasingly prevalent as a reason for revision and infection continued to plague patients after TKA. Positive trends were noted, such as decreased rates of blood transfusion, LOS and rates of discharge to SNF. Still, the revision burden remains large, costing approximately $1.4 billion annually and we must continue to attempt to improve outcomes in this patient population. For figures, tables, or references, please contact authors directly

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

Background. There are case series of debonding of the ATTUNE® tibial component introduced in 2013. We studied the early clinical results of this total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and compared it to other designs at one hospital. Methods. This is a retrospective study of 223 consecutive, non-randomized, cemented fixed-bearing posterior-stabilized ATTUNE® TKAs at one hospital by 5 surgeons from 2013 through 2017. We excluded 4 knees with early infection and 53 with follow-up less than 6 months. Of 166 TKAs reviewed, the mean patient age was 63.8 years, mean BMI 32, and mean follow-up 25 months. We compared this to a “control” cohort of 511 TKAs of other manufacturers performed at the same hospital. The endpoints were revision performed and revision pending. Results. Nineteen (11.5%) ATTUNE® knees have been revised and revision is pending in 12 (7%) knees, at a mean of 30 months. Tibial component loosening was seen in 17 (90%) revised knees. There was no difference between knees revised or revision pending and unrevised knees in patient demographics, cement used (p=0.84), or attending surgeon (p=0.55). In the “control” cohort, there were 13 (2.6%) knees revised (p<0.0001) and revision pending in 8 (1.5%) (p<0.0001), and only 2 had tibial loosening as the reason for revision. Conclusion. This cemented TKA design had an unexpected high early rate of revision. Debonding of the tibial component was the most common reason for failure. Additional longer-term follow-up studies of this component and techniques for implantation are warranted

Aims. Limited evidence is available on mid-term outcomes of robotic-arm assisted (RA) partial knee arthroplasty (PKA). Therefore, the purpose of this study was to evaluate mid-term survivorship, modes of failure, and patient-reported outcomes of RA PKA. Methods. A retrospective review of patients who underwent RA PKA between June 2007 and August 2016 was performed. Patients received a fixed-bearing medial or lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA), patellofemoral arthroplasty (PFA), or bicompartmental knee arthroplasty (BiKA; PFA plus medial UKA). All patients completed a questionnaire regarding revision surgery, reoperations, and level of satisfaction. Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Scores (KOOS) were assessed using the KOOS for Joint Replacement Junior survey. Results. Mean follow-up was 4.7 years (2.0 to 10.8). Five-year survivorship of medial UKA (n = 802), lateral UKA (n = 171), and PFA/BiKA (n = 35/10) was 97.8%, 97.7%, and 93.3%, respectively. Component loosening and progression of osteoarthritis (OA) were the most common reasons for revision. Mean KOOS scores after medial UKA, lateral UKA, and PFA/BiKA were 84.3 (SD 15.9), 85.6 (SD 14.3), and 78.2 (SD 14.2), respectively. The vast majority of the patients reported high satisfaction levels after RA PKA. Subgroup analyses suggested tibial component design, body mass index (BMI), and age affects RA PKA outcomes. Five-year survivorship was 98.4% (95% confidence interval (CI) 97.2 to 99.5) for onlay medial UKA (n = 742) and 99.1% (95% CI 97.9 to 100) for onlay medial UKA in patients with a BMI < 30 kg/m. 2. (n = 479). Conclusion. This large single-surgeon study showed high mid-term survivorship, satisfaction levels, and functional outcomes in RA UKA using metal-backed tibial onlay components. In addition, favourable results were reported in RA PFA and BiKA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(1):108–116

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

Introduction. One of the main considerations in the revision TKR setting is deciding on the level of constraint to be utilized once the bone defects have been reconstructed. There is a fear that employing a maximally constrained insert could compromise long term results. We report on a consecutive series of full tibial and femoral component revisions all treated with a maximally conforming insert and followed for a minimum of 5 years. Materials and Methods. The study group consisted of 76 consecutive revision TKR in 76 patients where both the femur and the tibia were revised. 4 patients died and 6 were lost to follow up. Final cohort had an average age of 70 years, average BMI of 31 and there were 39 males in the group. Average time to revision was 7 years (range 1–10 years) and the reasons for revision included infection in 28, aseptic loosening 26, osteolysis and poly wear in 9 and 13 other. All were treated with the same revision system and an identical maximally conforming tibial rotating platform insert and followed for an average of 7 years (range 5–14 years). Results. one patient required additional surgery during the study period for a patella fracture. There were no manipulations. Average Knee Society Scores increased from an average of 55 to 89 at final follow up. No implants were loose or at risk of loosening and no knee sustained any mechanical complications related to the insert. Conclusion. Despite fears to the contrary, we did not identify any issues in using a maximally constrained insert in this consecutive group of revision total knee patients. It is unclear if the fact that these inserts were of a rotating platform design is important. In this group of revision TKRs, using the maximal level of constraint did not appear to negatively influence outcome at mid-term follow up

Introduction. Instability is a common reason for revision after total knee arthroplasty. A balanced flexion gap is likely to enhance stability throughout the arc of motion. This is achieved differently by the gap balancing and measured resection techniques. Given similar clinical results with the two techniques, one would expect similar rotation of the femoral component in the axial plane. We assessed posterior-stabilized femoral component axial rotation placed with computer navigation and a modified gap balancing technique. We hypothesized that there would be little variation in rotation. Methods. 90 surgeons from 8 countries used a modified gap-balancing technique and the same posterior-stabilized implant for this retrospective study. Axial rotation of the femoral component was collected from a navigation system and reported relative to the posterior condylar line. Patients were stratified by their preoperative coronal mechanical alignment (≥ 3° varus, < 3° varus to < 3° valgus, and ≥ 3° valgus). Results. 2442 consecutive patients were included in the analysis; 835 with ≥ 3° varus, 1343 with < 3° varus to < 3° valgus, and 264 with ≥ 3° valgus. Mean rotation was external 2.4. 0. +/− 3.4. 0. (range, 10. 0. internal − 21. 0. external). In 16.4% of the cohort, axial rotation was set in a position of internal rotation. In 15.6% of the cohort, axial rotation was set at > 5. 0. of external rotation. Compared to both the neutral and varus groups, valgus knees required a different mean rotation to achieve a balanced flexion gap (p < .0001). Conclusion. These data show a wide range of femoral rotation was needed to achieve a rectangular flexion gap. This suggests that choosing a pre-determined femoral implant axial rotation (measured resection) may lead to flexion gap asymmetry more frequently compared to adjusting the axial rotation intraoperatively (gap-balancing). Correlation to clinical outcome scores is needed

The aim of this study was to review the early outcome of the Femoro-Patella Vialla (FPV) joint replacement. A total of 48 consecutive FPVs were implanted between December 2007 and June 2011. Case-note analysis was performed to evaluate the indications, operative histology, operative findings, post-operative complications and reasons for revision. The mean age of the patients was 63.3 years (48.2 to 81.0) and the mean follow-up was 25.0 months (6.1 to 48.9). Revision was performed in seven (14.6%) at a mean of 21.7 months, and there was one re-revision. Persistent pain was observed in three further patients who remain unrevised. The reasons for revision were pain due to progressive tibiofemoral disease in five, inflammatory arthritis in one, and patellar fracture following trauma in one. No failures were related to the implant or the technique. Trochlear dysplasia was associated with a significantly lower rate of revision (5.9% vs 35.7%, p = 0.017) and a lower incidence of revision or persistent pain (11.8% vs 42.9%, p = 0.045). . Focal patellofemoral osteoarthritis secondary to trochlear dysplasia should be considered the best indication for patellofemoral replacement. Standardised radiological imaging, with MRI to exclude overt tibiofemoral disease should be part of the pre-operative assessment, especially for the non-dysplastic knee. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:793–7

Purpose. Little information is available relating to patient demographics, reasons for failure and types of implants used at time of revision following failure of patellofemoral joint (PFJ) replacement. Methods and Results. Using data extracted from the NJR a series of 128 PFJ revisions in whom the index primary procedure was also recorded in the NJR were identified. This cohort therefore represents early failures of PFJ replacements revised over a 2 year period which were implanted after April 2003 and included revisions of 11 different brands of PFJ replacement from 6 different manufacturers. The median age at primary procedure was 59.0 (Range 21.1 to 83.2) of which 43 patients were <55 years old (31 males, 97 females). 19% of the revisions were performed in the first year after implantation, in the second year in 33 cases (26%), in the third year in 39 cases (31%) and between years 4 to 7 in 32 patients (25%). The commonest reasons for revision were pain (35%), aseptic loosening (18%), subluxation, dislocation or instability (11%), PE wear (7%) and component malalignment (6%). No reason for revision was stated in 30% and only 2 cases were revised for infection. Reason for revision differed according to year of failure but was consistent with respect to age at primary surgery. PFJ revision reason differed from those stated for revisions of primary UKR and TKR from the same period with pain being more prevalent and aseptic loosening and infection being less prevalent in the PFJ group. Single stage revision was performed in 124 cases and 118 underwent cemented revision. Conclusion. Limited data exists on the demographics and outcome for patellofemoral arthroplasty revision. This study is the first to identify reasons for failure in a large cohort and relate such to duration of primary component

Introduction. It has been hypothesized that a unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is more likely to be revised than a total knee (TKA) because conversion surgery to a primary TKA is available. The purpose of this study was to determine if there is a lower threshold for UKA revisions compared to TKA revisions based on Oxford Knee Scores and range of motion (ROM). Methods. We retrospectively reviewed 636 aseptic revision cases performed between 1998 and 2018. This included 137 UKAs that underwent conversion to TKA and 499 TKA revisions. Pre-revision age, body mass index (BMI), time in situ, Oxford Knee Scores, and ROM were available for all patients. T-tests were performed to determine if significant differences existed between the two groups. The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) when comparing Oxford scores between cohorts has been reported as 5 points. Results. There were no differences between the two groups based on gender, BMI, age, or time to revision. The top three reasons for revision are different. TKR revision diagnoses were loosening 43%, instability 18% and wear 13%. UKA revision diagnoses are progression of OA 37%, loosening 36%, and wear 12%. All UKA were converted to TKA while there were 440 partial and 59 all component TKR revisions. Out of a maximum 48 points, the mean Oxford score of the UKAs before revision was 23±9.5, which was significantly higher than the TKAs at 19.3±9.7 (p<0.001). UKA patients scored statistically better on nine of the twelve Oxford questions with no difference in pain, walking, and sit to stand questions. Revised UKA had greater pre-revision ROM (1140) than TKR (990, p<0.001). Conclusion. The mean UKA Oxford scores prior to revision were significantly better than pre-revision TKA scores and better on 9 of 12 individual Oxford questions. However, the 3.7 point mean difference is less than the 5 point MCID for the Oxford Knee Score. This study suggests that at our institution there may not be a difference in patient reported Oxford preoperative scores between UKA and TKR revisions implying that we are not more likely to revise a UKA than a TKA. This is not surprising since our center does a high volume of UKA. We have also performed sub analyses comparing UKA revision scores to partial and both component TKA revision scores. For figures, tables, or references, please contact authors directly

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

Aims

The aim of this study was to determine whether obesity had a detrimental effect on the long-term performance and survival of medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasties (UKAs).

Aims

Metal particles detached from metal-on-metal hip prostheses (MoM-THA) have been shown to cause inflammation and destruction of tissues. To further explore this, we investigated the histopathology (aseptic lymphocyte-dominated vasculitis-associated lesions (ALVAL) score) and metal concentrations of the periprosthetic tissues obtained from patients who underwent revision knee arthroplasty. We also aimed to investigate whether accumulated metal debris was associated with ALVAL-type reactions in the synovium.