Introduction. A key outcome measured by national joint registries are revision events. This informs best practice and identifies poor-performing surgical devices. Although registry data often record reasons for revision arthroplasty, interpretation is limited by lack of standardised definitions of revision reasons and objective assessment of radiologic and laboratory parameters. Our study aim was to compare reasons for unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) revision reported to the New Zealand Joint Registry (NZJR) with reasons identified by independent clinical review. Methods. A total of 2,272 patients undergoing primary medial and lateral UKA at four large tertiary hospitals between 2000 and 2017 were included. A total of 158 patients underwent subsequent revision with mean follow-up of 8 years. A systematic review of clinical findings, radiographs and operative data was performed to identify revision cases and to determine the reasons for revision using a standardised protocol. These were compared to reasons reported to the NZJR using Chi-squared and Fisher exact tests. Results. Osteoarthritis progression was the most common reason for revision on systematic clinical review (30%), however this was underreported to the registry (4%, p<0.001). A larger proportion of revisions reported to the registry were for ‘unexplained pain’ (30% of cases vs. 4% on clinical review, p<0.001). A reason for revision was not reported to the registry for 24 (15%) of cases. Discussion and Conclusion. We found significant inaccuracies in registry-reported reasons for revision following UKA. These included over-reporting of ‘unexplained pain’, under-reporting of osteoarthritis progression, and failure to identify a reason for revision. Efforts to improve registry capture of revision reasons for UKA should focus on increasing accuracy in these three areas. This could be addressed through standardised recording methods and tailored revision reason options for UKA for surgeons to select when recording the reasons

Converting UKA to TKA can be difficult, and specialised techniques are needed. Issues include bone loss, joint line approximation, sizing, and rotation. Determining the complexity of conversion preoperatively helps predict the need for augmentation, grafting, stems, or constraint. In a 2009 study from our center, 50 UKA revised to TKA (1997–2007) were reviewed: 9 modular fixed-bearing, 4 metal-backed nonmodular fixed-bearing, 8 resurfacing onlay, 10 all-polyethylene step-cut, and 19 mobile bearing designs; 5 knees failed due to infection, 5 due to wear and/or instability, 10 for pain or progression of arthritis, 8 for tibial fracture or severe subsidence, and 22 due to loosening of either one or both components. Insert thickness was no different between implants or failure modes. Stemmed component use was most frequent with nonmodular components (50%), all-polyethylene step-cut implants (44%), and modular fixed-bearing implants (33%; P=0.40). Stem use was highest in tibial fracture (86%; P=0.002). Augment use was highest among all-polyethylene step-cut implants (all-polyethylene, 56%; metal-backed, 50%; modular fixed-bearing, 33%; P=0.01). Augmentation use was highest in fracture (86%) and infection (67%), with a significant difference noted between failure modes (P=0.003). Failure of nonmodular all-polyethylene step-cut devices was more complex than resurfacing or mobile bearing. Reestablishing the joint line, ligamentous balance, and durable fixation are critical to assuring a primary outcome. In a 2013 multicenter study of 3 institutions including ours, a total of 175 revisions of medial UKA in 168 patients (average age: 66 years) performed from 1995 to 2009 with a minimum 2-year clinical follow-up were reviewed. The average time from UKA to revision TKA was 71.5 months (2–262). The four most common reasons for failure were femoral or tibial loosening (55%), progressive arthritis of the lateral or patellofemoral joints (34%), polyethylene failure (4%) and infection (3%). Mean follow-up after revision was 75 months. Nine of 175 knees (4.5%) were subsequently revised at an average of 48 months (6–123). The average Knee Society pain and function score increased to 75 and 66, respectively. In the present series, the re-revision rate after revision TKA from UKA was 4.5% at an average of 75 months. In a current study from our center, 184 patients (193 UKA) underwent revision procedures (1996–2015) with minimum 2-year follow-up. Mean age was 63.5 (37–84) years, body mass index was 32.3 (19–57) kg/m. 2. , and interval after UKA was 4.8 (0–35) years. Most prevalent indications for revision were aseptic loosening (42%), arthritic progression (20%) and tibial collapse (14%). At 6.1 years mean follow-up (2–20), 8 knees (4.1%) have required re-revision involving any part, which is similar to what we recently reported at 5.5 years in a group of patients who underwent primary TKA (6 of 189; 3.2%), and much lower than what we observed at 6.0 years in a recent report of patients who underwent aseptic revision TKA (35 of 278; 12.6%). In the study group, Knee Society clinical and function scores improved from 50.8 and 52.1 preoperatively to 83.4 and 67.6 at most recent evaluation, respectively. Re-revisions were for aseptic loosening (3), instability (2), arthrofibrosis (2), and infection (1). Compared to published individual institution and national registry data, re-revision rates of failed UKA are equivalent to revision rates of primary TKA and substantially better than re-revision rates of revision TKA. These data should be used to counsel patients undergoing revision UKA to TKA

One of the arguments in favor of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is the possibility of an easier revision. Especially if UKA is considered as an early intervention allowing bridging until total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is necessary at later age. If indeed primary TKA results can be obtained at time of revision, UKA becomes a real indication to postpone TKA until a later age. For obtaining primary TKA results, a primary knee should be indicated for the revision. This is possible if the UKA cuts were conservative and within the resection level of a primary TKA. Furthermore bone loss should be contained and either be resected or easily solved with substituting techniques compatible with a primary TKA. Finally, the primary implant utilised should allow a full interchangeability of the tibial and femoral sizes. This allows a lower tibial cut during the revision, often leading to a smaller size but interchangeability avoids downsizing the femur and creating flexion gap instability. If the UKA to TKA revision asks for stems, bone substitutions, joint line changes and more constraint, the primary result will not be obtained. Therefore it is important to select a bone preserving UKA system that allows for conservative bone cuts and avoids deep keel preparations. UKA to TKA with primary components and without gap mismatches or joint line changes leads to excellent outcome

1. Reconstruction of Failed Hip Abductors following THA-A New Surgical Technique using Graft Jacket Matrix. 2. A Comparison of Modular Tapered versus Cylindrical Stems for Complex Femoral Revisions. 3. Clinical Presentation and Imaging Results of Patients With Symptomatic Gluteus Medius Tears. 4. Should Patients Undergoing Elective Arthroplasty Be Screened for Malnutrition. 5. Revision UKA to TKA: Not a Slam Dunk. 6. HgBA1C – A Marker for Surgical Risk in Diabetic Patients Undergoing Total Joint Arthroplasty. 7. Dexamethasone Reduces Post Operative Hospitalisation and Improves Pain and Nausea After Total Joint Arthroplasty. 8. Infection Following Simultaneous Bilateral TKA. 9. Staph Decolonisation in Total Joint Arthroplasty Is Effective. 10. Comparison of One Versus Two Stage Revision Results for Infected THA. 11. Should Draining Wounds and Sinuses Associated With Hip and Knee Arthroplasties Be Cultured. 12. Differences In Short Term Complications Between Spinal and General Anesthesia for Primary TKA

Background. To evaluate the causes and modes of complications after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA), and to identify its prevention and treatment method by analyzing the complications after UKA. Materials and Methods. A total of 1,576 UKAs were performed between January 2002 and December 2014 at a single-institution. Postoperative complications occurred in 89 knees (83 patients, 5.6%), and 86 of them were found in females and 3 in males. Their mean age was 61 years (range, 46 to 81 years) at the time of initial UKA and 66 years (range, 46 to 82 years) at the time of revision surgery. We analyzed the complications after UKA retrospectively andinvestigated the proper methods of treatment (Table 1). Results. A total of 89 complications (5.6%) occurred afterUKA. Regarding the type of complications after UKA, there were bearing dislocation (n=42), component loosening (n=23), 11 cases of femoral component loosening, 8 cases of tibial component loosening, and 4 cases of both femoral and tibial component loosening, periprosthetic fracture (n=6), polyethylene wear/ destruction (n=3), progression of arthritis to the other compartment (n=3), medial collateral ligament (MCL) injury (n=2), impingement (n=2), infection (n=5), ankylosis (n=1), and unexplained pain (n=2) (Table 2). The most common complication after UKA was mobile bearing dislocation in mobile-bearing type and loosening of prosthesis in fixed-bearing type, but polyethylene wear and progression of arthritis were relatively rare. The mean interval from UKA to the occurrence of complications was 4 years and 6 months (range, 0 [during operation] to 12 years). Of those complications following UKA, 58 knees were treated with conversion TKA, 1 with revision UKA, and 21 with simple bearing change. Complications in the remaining knees were treated with arthroscopic management (n=2), open reduction and internal fixation (n=3), closed reduction and internal fixation (n=1), manipulation (n=1), and MCL repair (n=2) (Table 3). Discussion. In this single-center study, we reviewed the causes and types of complications (n=89) that occurred following UKA (n=1,576) and investigated optimal treatment methods. The incidence and type of complications were also compared among patients classified according to gender, medial/lateral UKA, and implant design and type. The strengths of this study include that all the patients were enrolled from the same institution and the sample size (UKA cases and complication cases) was relatively large compared to that in previous publications. The most common complication following UKA was bearing dislocation in the mobile-bearing knees and component loosening in the fixed-bearing knees. The incidence of polyethylene wear and progression of arthritis to the other compartment was relatively low. The results of our study are in some discrepancy with those of studies involving Western patients. This can be attributed to the differences in patient characteristics such as lifestyle and in the type and design of implant used. Conclusion. Thorough understanding of UKA, proper patient selection, appropriate implant choice are essential to reduce complications following UKA and obtain satisfactory outcomes. We suggest that complications following UKA should be treated differently according to the type and cause of complication and conversion TKA can be the most effective treatment when revision operation is determined necessary

Converting UKA to TKA can be difficult, and specialised techniques are needed. Issues include bone loss, joint line approximation, sizing, and rotation. Determining the complexity of conversion pre-operatively helps predict the need for augmentation, grafting, stems, or constraint. In a 2009 study from our center, 50 UKA revised to TKA (1997–2007) were reviewed: 9 implants (18%) were modular fixed-bearing, 4 (8%) were metal-backed nonmodular fixed-bearing, 8 (16%) were resurfacing onlay, 10 (20%) were all-polyethylene step-cut, and 19 (38%) were mobile bearing designs; 5 knees (10%) failed due to infection, 5 (10%) due to wear and/or instability, 10 (20%) for pain or progression of arthritis, 8 (16%) for tibial fracture or severe subsidence, and 22 (44%) due to loosening of either one or both components. Insert thickness was no different between implants (P=0.23) or failure modes (P=0.27). Stemmed component use was most frequent with nonmodular components (50%), all-polyethylene step-cut implants (44%), and modular fixed-bearing implants (33%; P=0.40). Stem use was highest in tibial fracture (86%; P=0.002). Augment use was highest among all-polyethylene step-cut implants (all-polyethylene, 56%; metal-backed, 50%; modular fixed-bearing, 33%; P=0.01). Augmentation use was highest in fracture (86%) and infection (67%), with a significant difference noted between failure modes (P=0.003). Failure of nonmodular all-polyethylene step-cut devices was more complex than resurfacing or mobile bearing. Failure mode was predictive of complexity. Reestablishing the joint line, ligamentous balance, and durable fixation are critical to assuring a primary outcome. In a 2013 multicenter study of 3 institutions including ours, a total of 175 revisions of medial UKA in 168 patients (81 males, 87 females; average age of 66 years) performed from 1995 to 2009 with a minimum of 2-year clinical follow-up were reviewed. The average time from UKA to revision TKA was 71.5 months (range: 2 months to 262 months). The four most common reasons for failure of the UKA were femoral or tibial loosening (55%), progressive arthritis of the lateral or patellofemoral joints (34%), polyethylene failure (4%) and infection (3%). Mean follow-up after revision was 75 months. Nine of 175 knees (4.5%) were subsequently revised at an average of 48 months (range 6 months to 123 months.) The rate of revision was 1.23 revisions per 100 observed component years. The average Knee Society pain and function score increased to 75 and 66, respectively. In the present series, the re-revision rate after revision TKA from UKA was 4.5 % at an average of 75 months or 1.2 revisions per 100 observed component years. In a current study from our center, 174 patients (180 UKA) underwent revision procedures (1996–2017). Most prevalent indications for revision were aseptic loosening (45%) arthritic progression (17%) and tibial collapse (13%). At 4 years mean follow-up, 5 knees (2.8%) have required re-revision involving any part, which is similar to what we recently reported at 5.5 years in a group of patients who underwent primary TKA (6 of 189; 3.2%), and much lower than what we observed at 6.0 years in a recent report of patients who underwent aseptic revision TKA (35 of 278; 12.6%). Compared to published individual institution and national registry data, re-revision of a failed UKA is equivalent to revision rates of primary TKA and substantially better than re-revision rates of revision TKA. These data should be used to counsel patients undergoing revision UKA to TKA

Converting UKA to TKA can be difficult, and specialised techniques are needed. Issues include bone loss, joint line approximation, sizing, and rotation. Determining the complexity of conversion pre-operatively helps predict the need for augmentation, grafting, stems, or constraint. In a 2009 study from our center, 50 UKA revised to TKA (1997–2007) were reviewed: 9 implants (18%) were modular fixed-bearing, 4 (8%) were metal-backed nonmodular fixed-bearing, 8 (16%) were resurfacing onlay, 10 (20%) were all-polyethylene step-cut, and 19 (38%) were mobile bearing designs; 5 knees (10%) failed due to infection, 5 (10%) due to wear and/or instability, 10 (20%) for pain or progression of arthritis, 8 (16%) for tibial fracture or severe subsidence, and 22 (44%) due to loosening of either one or both components. Insert thickness was no different between implants (P=0.23) or failure modes (P=0.27). Stemmed component use was most frequent with nonmodular components (50%), all-polyethylene step-cut implants (44%), and modular fixed-bearing implants (33%; P=0.40). Stem use was highest in tibial fracture (86%; P=0.002). Augment use was highest among all-polyethylene step-cut implants (all-polyethylene, 56%; metal-backed, 50%; modular fixed-bearing, 33%; P=0.01). Augmentation use was highest in fracture (86%) and infection (67%), with a significant difference noted between failure modes (P=0.003). Failure of nonmodular all-polyethylene step-cut devices was more complex than resurfacing or mobile bearing. Failure mode was predictive of complexity. Reestablishing the joint line, ligamentous balance, and durable fixation are critical to assuring a primary outcome. In a 2013 multicenter study of 3 institutions including ours, a total of 175 revisions of medial UKA in 168 patients (81 males, 87 females; average age of 66 years) performed from 1995 to 2009 with a minimum of 2-year clinical follow-up were reviewed. The average time from UKA to revision TKA was 71.5 months (range 2 months to 262 months). The four most common reasons for failure of the UKA were femoral or tibial loosening (55%), progressive arthritis of the lateral or patellofemoral joints (34%), polyethylene failure (4%) and infection (3%). Mean follow-up after revision was 75 months. Nine of 175 knees (4.5%) were subsequently revised at an average of 48 months (range 6 months to 123 months). The rate of revision was 1.23 revisions per 100 observed component years. The average Knee Society pain and function score increased to 75 and 66, respectively. In the present series, the re-revision rate after revision TKA from UKA was 4.5% at an average of 75 months or 1.2 revisions per 100 observed component years. Compared to published individual institution and national registry data, re-revision of a failed UKA is equivalent to revision rates of primary TKA and substantially better than re-revision rates of revision TKA. These data should be used to counsel patients undergoing revision UKA to TKA

Introduction:. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is becoming an increasingly popular option in single compartment osteoarthritis. As a result, diverse second operations including revisions to total knee arthroplasty (TKA) will also increase. The objective of this study is to investigate the distribution of causes of second operations after UKA. Methods:. We retrospectively reviewed 695 UKAs performed on 597 patients between January 2003 and December 2011. Except in one case, all UKAs were replaced at the medial compartment of the knee. The UKAs were performed on 559 (80.4%) women's knees and 136 (19.6%) men's knees. The mean age at the time of UKA was 61.5 years. The mobile-bearing designs were those that were predominantly implanted (n = 628 mobile, 90.2%; n = 67 fixed). The mean interval between UKA and second operation was 14.1 months. Results:. In our study, the burden of a second operation after the initial UKA was 7.3%, and the total number of second operations was 51 (n = 45 mobile, n = 6 fixed). The most common cause of a second operation after a mobile-bearing UKA was the dislocation of the meniscal bearing (34.8%), followed by component loosening (21.7%), the formation of a cement loose body (15.2%), unexplained pain (13%), infection (6.5%), periprosthetic fracture (4.3%), and others (4.4%). For the fixed-bearing UKA, the causes of a second operation were loosening (n = 2), unexplained pain (n = 2), and bearing wear (n = 1). The main causes of either a revision UKA or a conversion to TKA were multiform operations that included bricement, internal fixation for a periprosthetic fracture, isolated bearing changes, open debridement with bearing changes, or implant removal due to early infection. Conversions to TKA during the second operation were performed in 17 cases. Discussion and conclusion:. The most common cause of a second operation after a mobile-bearing UKA was the dislocation of the bearing, followed by component loosening and the formation of a cement loose body. After a fixed-bearing UKA, component loosening and unexplained pain were the most common. A cause-based approach to the primary and failed UKA may be helpful to minimize the possibility of a second operation and to give rise to a successful outcome of a revision TKA

As with any revision knee arthroplasty, the first rule of revision is to ensure that the reason for failure has been identified, as revision for pain alone is associated with poor results. This is particularly important when considering revision of a UKA, as surgeons may have a lower threshold for revision than following TKA given the perception that the revision is “easy” and that the pain is “probably from the unresurfaced compartments”. In a multi-center study, we found that many patients undergoing revision of a failed UKA do not have an appropriate evaluation for infection. Evaluation should include a screening ESR and CRP and if abnormal, an aspiration of the knee joint for synovial fluid WBC count, differential and culture. To revise a UKA to a TKA, we perform the revision as we would a primary TKA, ignoring the implanted femoral component and using it to assist with reference of femoral component rotation and for the distal femoral cut; the component is not removed until it must for the final preparation. After finishing the femoral component cuts, the tibia is completely exposed prior to carefully removing the tibial component and re-cutting the tibia. In our experience of 45 consecutive both component revisions of UKA to TKA at Rush, 44 used primary implants (98%), including cruciate retaining implants in 36 of these 44 knees (82%; the balance were PS implants) and tibial stems were utilised in 6 of 44 knees (14%). In order to better understand the outcomes of revision of failed UKA we studied 49 patients revised from UKA to TKA and 43 revised from HTO to TKA and matched them to 43 aseptic, both component revision TKA and 97 primary TKA. At a mean of 4.8 years, the KSS and Function Scores in the UKA to TKA, HTO to TKA and primary TKA cohorts were similar. Total operative times were significantly higher in the HTO to TKA and revision TKA groups. Length of hospital stay was shorter in the primary TKA cohort. The rate of complications and reoperations were higher in the HTO to TKA and revision TKA groups compared to the UKA to TKA and primary TKA groups. Based on these results, we believe that revising an HTO and UKA to a TKA both had functional outcomes more similar to a primary than a revision TKA, however, the complication rate of revising an HTO was more similar to a revision than a primary TKA

Introduction. The advantages of UKA include bone stock preservation, physiologic kinematics, retention of main knee ligaments, improved proprioception, & better functional outcome. A semi-active robotic system using CT-based data combined with intraoperative registration & tactile feedback has the potential for more precise implant placement & alignment. This purpose of this study was to compare robotic-assisted implantation (RAI) with conventional manual implantation (CMI) & to investigate whether this technology could lead to more reliable & reproducible outcomes. Methods. We prospectively collected data on 32 RAI UKR and 30 CMI UKR. Baseline data collection included: age, gender, BMI, comorbidities, diagnosis, & pre-operative SF-12 Physical Component, SF-12 Mental Component, WOMAC pain, WOMAC Stiffness, & WOMAC Physical Functional scores. Postoperatively, SF-12 & WOMAC scores were recorded, in addition to routine arthroplasty follow-up. Results. Preoperative characteristics were similar. At mean follow-up of 3.20 years (range 2 – 6.2 years), no significant differences were found on SF-12 Physical Component, SF-12 Mental Component, WOMAC pain, & WOMAC Physical Functional scores. Multivariate analysis demonstrated higher WOMAC stiffness scores (p=0.049) in the RA-UKR group. There was no component loosening, progression of the arthritis in the remaining compartments, infection, or PE wear in either group. Revision of UKA to TKA was performed in 1 RAI patient due to persistent medial pain. One technology failure occurred. Additionally, there was a significant increase in operative time in the RAI group (average 20.4 min; p < 0.01) and in OR turnover time (average 32%; p =0.022). Conclusion. No significant differences were found in function, pain, or mental well being at mid-term follow-up of patients that underwent either robotic assisted or conventional UKR. As has been found in other studies, there was improved mechanical alignment & component positioning radiographically but there were no significant differences in functional outcomes. Patient satisfaction is high & there is there is reduced patient cost when the procedure is performed conventionally. Robotic assisted procedures have been discontinued due to lack of clear advantages. We will continue to follow these patients to determine whether better clinical outcomes &/or increased implant longevity occurs over time