Abstract. Introduction. Augmentation of meniscus repairs with fibrin clot may enhance the healing capacity. Pulling the clot into the tear with a suture ensures that it stays in position. This paper aims to assess the outcome of this technique. Methods. 52 patients over 4 years undergoing suture repair of a meniscus tear with blood clot augmentation were collected from a prospective database. Follow up included outcome scores and a questionnaire. Failure was defined as pain or further surgery secondary to meniscal pathology. Results. There were 32 males and 20 females, mean age of 35 (14–70). The medial meniscus was repaired in 32 knees and the lateral in 20. Complete radial tears were the most common type. Only 2% of tears were in the red-red zone. Follow-up ranged from 12 months to 7 years. Only 1 patient is known to have come to subsequent arthroscopy. Lysholm scores improved from 53.97 (SD 18.14) to 92.08 (SD 8.97), Oxford Knee Scores from 29.84 (SD 9.65) to 45.79 (SD 2.66), KOOS pain scores from 61.49 (SD 22.76) to 93.54 (SD 8.06) and Tegner scores from 4.56 (SD 3.35) to 6.05 (SD 2.41). Conclusions. Pulling a fibrin blood clot into a meniscus tear with a suture ensures that the clot remains in place while the meniscus is repaired. Patients have shown excellent outcomes with 98% survivorship at 45 months. This is a reliable technique for augmenting meniscus repairs especially for tears which otherwise may not have been repaired

We report the clinical outcome and findings at second-look arthroscopy of 216 patients (mean age 25 years (11 to 58)) who underwent anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction or augmentation. There were 73 single-bundle ACL augmentations (44 female, 29 male), 82 double-bundle ACL reconstructions (35 female, 47 male), and 61 single-bundle ACL reconstructions (34 female, 27 male). In 94 of the 216 patients, proprioceptive function of the knee was evaluated before and 12 months after surgery using the threshold to detect passive motion test. Second-look arthroscopy showed significantly better synovial coverage of the graft in the augmentation group (good: 60 (82%), fair: 10 (14%), poor: 3 (4%)) than in the other groups (p = 0.039). The mean side-to-side difference measured with a KT-2000 arthrometer was 0.4 mm (-3.3 to 2.9) in the augmentation group, 0.9 mm (-3.2 to 3.5) in the double-bundle group, and 1.3 mm (-2.7 to 3.9) in the single-bundle group: the result differed significantly between the augmentation and single-bundle groups (p = 0 .013). No significant difference in the Lysholm score or pivot-shift test was seen between the three groups (p = 0.09 and 0.65, respectively). In patients with good synovial coverage, three of the four measurements used revealed significant improvement in proprioceptive function (p = 0.177, 0.020, 0.034, and 0.026). We conclude that ACL augmentation is a reasonable treatment option for patients with favourable ACL remnants. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:1325–32

Abstract. Introduction. Tibial tubercle osteotomy (TTO) is a complex surgical procedure with a significant risk of complications, which include nonunion and tibial fracture. To determine whether an additional suture tape augmentation can provide better biomechanical stability compared with standard screw fixation. Methods. Five matched pairs of human cadaveric knees were divided into 2 groups: the first group underwent standard TTO fixation with 2 parallel screws. The second group underwent a novel fixation technique, in which a nonabsorbable suture tape (FiberTape) in a figure-of-8 construct was added to the standard screw fixation. Tubercular fragment migration of >50% of the initial distalization length was defined as clinical failure Tubercular fragment displacement during cyclic loading and pull-to-failure force were recorded and compared between the 2 groups. Results. The augmented group showed less cyclic tubercular fragment displacement after every load level compared with the standard group, with statistically significant differences starting from 500 N (P < .05; power > 0.8). Mean ± standard deviation tubercular fragment displacement at the end of cyclic loading was 2.56 ± 0.82 mm for the augmented group and 5.21 ± 0.51 mm for the standard group. Mean ultimate failure load after the pull-to-failure test was 2475 ± 554 N for the augmented group and 1475 ± 280 N for the standard group. Conclusion. The specimens that underwent suture tape augmentation showed less tubercular fragment displacement during cyclic loading and higher ultimate failure forces compared with those that underwent standard screw fixation

Abstract. Introduction. All-tissue quadriceps tendon (QT) is becoming an increasingly popular alternative to hamstrings tendon (HT) and bone-tendon-bone (BTB) autograft for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. The relatively short graft length however dictates that one, or both, ends rely on suture fixation. The strength of this construct is therefore extremely important. This study evaluates whether the use of a novel fixation technique can improve the tensile properties of the construct compared to a Krackow suture, and a looped tendon (suture free) gold standard. Methods. Eighteen porcine flexor tendons were tested, across three groups; suture-tape Krackow, looped tendon, and the novel ‘strain suture’. Biomechanical testing simulated the different stages of ACL graft preparation and loading (60N preload for 10 minutes, 10 cycles from 10N to 75N, and 1000 cycles from 100N to 400N). Elongation and load to failure were recorded, and stiffness calculated for each construct. Results. The mean elongation was significantly improved for the strain suture compared to the suture tape Krackow for preload, 10 cycle and 1000 cycle testing protocols respectively (1.36mm vs 4.93mm, p<001; 0.60mm vs 2.72mm, p<0.001; 2.95mm vs 29.08mm, p<0.001). Compared with the looped tendon, the strain suture demonstrated similar results for preload and 10 cycle elongation, but greater elongation during the 1000 cycle stage. Stiffness of the latter two constructs was similar. Conclusions. Augmentation of the suture fixation using this novel technique provides a construct that is significantly superior to currently practised suture techniques, and similar in elongation and stiffness to a looped graft

In a single-blind, randomised series of knee replacements in 116 patients, we used radiostereometric analysis (RSA) to measure micromotion in three types of tibial implant fixation for two years after knee replacement. We compared hydroxyapatite-augmented porous coating, porous coating, and cemented fixation of the same design of tibial component. At one to two years, porous-coated implants migrated at a statistically significantly higher rate than hydroxyapatite-augmented or cemented implants. There was no significant difference between hydroxyapatite-coated and cemented implants. We conclude that hydroxyapatite augmentation may offer a clinically relevant advantage over a simple porous coating for tibial component fixation, but is no better than cemented fixation

Abstract

Aims. Debate continues regarding the optimum management of periprosthetic distal femoral fractures (PDFFs). This study aims to determine which operative treatment is associated with the lowest perioperative morbidity and mortality when treating low (Su type II and III) PDFFs comparing lateral locking plate fixation (LLP-ORIF) or distal femoral arthroplasty (DFA). Methods. This was a retrospective cohort study of 60 consecutive unilateral (PDFFs) of Su types II (40/60) and III (20/60) in patients aged ≥ 60 years: 33 underwent LLP-ORIF (mean age 81.3 years (SD 10.5), BMI 26.7 (SD 5.5); 29/33 female); and 27 underwent DFA (mean age 78.8 years (SD 8.3); BMI 26.7 (SD 6.6); 19/27 female). The primary outcome measure was reoperation. Secondary outcomes included perioperative complications, calculated blood loss, transfusion requirements, functional mobility status, length of acute hospital stay, discharge destination and mortality. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed. Cox multivariate regression analysis was performed to identify risk factors for reoperation after LLP-ORIF. Results. Follow-up was at mean 3.8 years (1.0 to 10.4). One-year mortality was 13% (8/60). Reoperation was more common following LLP-ORIF: 7/33 versus 0/27 (p = 0.008). Five-year survival for reoperation was significantly better following DFA; 100% compared to 70.8% (95% confidence interval (CI) 51.8% to 89.8%, p = 0.006). There was no difference for the endpoint mechanical failure (including radiological loosening); ORIF 74.5% (56.3 to 92.7), and DFA 78.2% (52.3 to 100, p = 0.182). Reoperation following LLP-ORIF was independently associated with medial comminution; hazard ratio (HR) 10.7 (1.45 to 79.5, p = 0.020). Anatomical reduction was protective against reoperation; HR 0.11 (0.013 to 0.96, p = 0.046). When inadequately fixed fractures were excluded, there was no difference in five-year survival for either reoperation (p = 0.156) or mechanical failure (p = 0.453). Conclusion. Absolute reoperation rates are higher following LLP fixation of low PDFFs compared to DFA. Where LLP-ORIF was well performed with augmentation of medial comminution, there was no difference in survival compared to DFA. Though necessary in very low fractures, DFA should be used with caution in patients with greater life expectancies due to the risk of longer term aseptic loosening. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(4):635–643

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

In the last decade, perioperative advancements have expanded the use of outpatient primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Despite this, there remains limited data on expedited discharge after revision TKA. This study compared 30-day readmissions and reoperations in patients undergoing revision TKA with a hospital stay greater or less than 24 hours. The authors hypothesized that expedited discharge in select patients would not be associated with increased 30-day readmissions and reoperations.

Aims

Obtaining solid implant fixation is crucial in revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) to avoid aseptic loosening, a major reason for re-revision. This study aims to validate a novel grading system that quantifies implant fixation across three anatomical zones (epiphysis, metaphysis, diaphysis).

Aims

Robotic arm-assisted surgery offers accurate and reproducible guidance in component positioning and assessment of soft-tissue tensioning during knee arthroplasty, but the feasibility and early outcomes when using this technology for revision surgery remain unknown. The objective of this study was to compare the outcomes of robotic arm-assisted revision of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) to total knee arthroplasty (TKA) versus primary robotic arm-assisted TKA at short-term follow-up.

Aims

To perform an incremental cost-utility analysis and assess the impact of differential costs and case volume on the cost-effectiveness of robotic arm-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (rUKA) compared to manual (mUKA).

Aims

This study aims to determine the rate of and risk factors for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) after operative management of tibial plateau fractures (TPFs) in older adults.

Aims. This study reports on the medium- to long-term implant survivorship and patient-reported outcomes for the Avon patellofemoral joint (PFJ) arthroplasty. Patients and Methods. A total of 558 Avon PFJ arthroplasties in 431 patients, with minimum two-year follow-up, were identified from a prospective database. Patient-reported outcomes and implant survivorship were analyzed, with follow-up of up to 18 years. Results. Outcomes were recorded for 483 implants (368 patients), representing an 86% follow-up rate. The median postoperative Oxford Knee Score (0 to 48 scale) was 35 (interquartile range (IQR) 25.5 to 43) and the median Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC, 0 to 100 scale) was 35 (IQR 25 to 53) at two years. There were 105 revisions, 61 (58%) for progression of osteoarthritis. All documented revisions were to primary knee systems without augmentation. The implant survival rate was 77.3% (95% confidence interval (CI) 72.4 to 81.7, number at risk 204) at ten years and 67.4% (95% CI 72.4 to 81.7 number at risk 45) at 15 years. Regression analysis of explanatory data variable showed that cases performed in the last nine years had improved survival compared with the first nine years of the cohort, but the individual operating surgeon had the strongest effect on survivorship. Conclusion. Satisfactory long-term results can be obtained with the Avon PFJ arthroplasty, with maintenance of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), satisfactory survival, and low rates of loosening and wear. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:1162–7

Aims

Endoprosthetic reconstruction with a distal femoral arthroplasty (DFA) can be used to treat distal femoral bone loss from oncological and non-oncological causes. This study reports the short-term implant survivorship, complications, and risk factors for patients who underwent DFA for non-neoplastic indications.

Aims

Outcomes of current operative treatments for arthrofibrosis after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) are not consistently positive or predictable. Pharmacological in vivo studies have focused mostly on prevention of arthrofibrosis. This study used a rabbit model to evaluate intra-articular (IA) effects of celecoxib in treating contracted knees alone, or in combination with capsular release.

Aims

Joint registries classify all further arthroplasty procedures to a knee with an existing partial arthroplasty as revision surgery, regardless of the actual procedure performed. Relatively minor procedures, including bearing exchanges, are classified in the same way as major operations requiring augments and stems. A new classification system is proposed to acknowledge and describe the detail of these procedures, which has implications for risk, recovery, and health economics.

Aims

Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is a bone-preserving treatment option for osteoarthritis localized to a single compartment in the knee. The success of the procedure is sensitive to patient selection and alignment errors. Robotic arm-assisted UKA provides technological assistance to intraoperative bony resection accuracy, which is thought to improve ligament balancing. This paper presents the five-year outcomes of a comparison between manual and robotically assisted UKAs.

Aims

To report mid- to long-term results of Oxford mobile bearing domed lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA), and determine the effect of potential contraindications on outcome.

Purpose. To establish the reliability of reporting and recording revision hip and knee arthroplasties by comparing data in the National Joint Registry (NJR), Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) and our local theatre records. Methods. The paper theatre registers for all orthopaedic theatres in the Royal Derby Hospitals NHS Trust were examined for details of revision hip and knee replacements carried out in 2007 and 2008. This was then cross-checked and merged with the local electronic theatre data to obtain a definitive local record of all revision hip and knee arthroplasties. Data for the same period was requested from the NJR and HES and these data were checked against our definitive local record for discrepancies. The HES codes used were the same codes used to compile the recent NJR annual reports. Results. The theatre registers and ORMIS identified 271 revision hip and knee arthroplasties in the study period. The NJR had corresponding data for 176 (65%) of these, and HES had 250 (92%). 10 cases (4%) were not recorded by either NJR or HES: 8 secondary resurfacings of patellae and 2 posterior lip augmentations in hips. Of those operations “missed” by HES, most had been assigned a correct “W” code, but had a “Y” or “Z” OPCS code not used in the NJR annual reports. Conclusion. When HES and the NJR data are combined, they are an accurate representation of real practice. More robust methods of reporting revision arthroplasty to the NJR are required. The OPCS codes used to indicate a revision need to be reviewed