Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is one of the most common orthopaedic operations performed worldwide and it is largely successful in pain relief and functional recovery. However, when pain persists post-operatively the thorough evaluation must be instituted. Extra-articular causes of knee pain include; hip pathology, lumbar spine degenerative disease or radicular symptoms, focal neuropathy, vascular disease, and chronic regional pain syndrome. Intra-articular causes of knee pain: infection, crepitation/clunk, patella osteonecrosis, patella mal-tracking, soft tissue imbalance, malalignment, arthrofibrosis, component loosening, implant wear, ilio-tibial band irritation, and bursitis. Other causes of pain to rule out are component overhang with soft tissue irritation, recurrent hemarthrosis secondary to synovial impingement or entrapment, non-resurfaced patella, and metal sensitivity. A careful history may reveal previous knee surgeries with delayed healing or prolonged drainage, chronology of sign and symptoms, co-morbid medical conditions, jewel or metal sensitivity. Physical exam should help with specific signs in the operated knee. Targeted local anesthetic blocks are helpful and response to lumbar sympathetic blocks determines presence of CRPS. Lab tests are important: ESR, CRP, WBC, aspiration with manual cell count and diff, leucocyte esterase dipstick, RA titers, metal derm patch testing, nuclear scans, CT best for rotational malalignment, and MARS MRI. More recently patient satisfaction as an outcome measure has shown TKA results not satisfactory in 11- 18% of patients. A discordance of patient vs. surgeon satisfaction exists so the following factors may help improve this: correct patient selection, establishing and correlating surgeon-patient expectations, peri-operative optimization of patient co-morbidities to help avoid preventable complications, use of pre-operative and post-operative pathways. Satisfaction rates can best be improved by addressing the previous points with patients prior to TKA surgery

TKA is one of the most common orthopaedic operations performed worldwide and it is largely successful in pain relief and functional recovery. However, when pain persists post-operatively the thorough evaluation must be instituted. Extra-articular causes of knee pain include; hip pathology, lumbar spine degenerative disease or radicular symptoms, focal neuropathy, vascular disease, and chronic regional pain syndrome. Intra-articular causes of knee pain: infection, crepitation/ clunk, patella osteonecrosis, patella mal-tracking, soft tissue imbalance, malalignment, arthrofibrosis, component loosening, implant wear, ilio-tibial band irritation, and bursitis. Other causes of pain to rule out are component overhang with soft tissue irritation, recurrent hemarthrosis secondary to synovial impingement or entrapment, non-resurfaced patella, and metal sensitivity. A careful history may reveal previous knee surgeries with delayed healing or prolonged drainage, chronology of sign and symptoms, co-morbid medical conditions, jewel or metal sensitivity. Physical exam should help with specific signs in the operated knee. Targeted local anesthetic blocks are helpful and response to lumbar sympathetic blocks determines presence of CRPS. Lab tests are important: ESR, CRP, WBC, aspiration with manual cell count and diff, leukocyte esterase dipstick, RA titers, metal derm patch testing, nuclear scans, CT best for rotational malalignment,, and MARS MRI. More recently patient satisfaction as an outcome measure has shown TKA results not satisfactory in 11 – 18% of patients. A discordance of patient vs. surgeon satisfaction exists so the following factors may help improve this: correct patient selection, establishing and correlating surgeon-patient expectations, peri-operative optimisation of patient comorbidities to help avoid preventable complications, use of pre- and post-operative pathways. Satisfaction rates can best be improved by addressing the previous points with patients prior to TKA surgery

Introduction. A comprehensive met-analysis of anterior knee pain post intramedullary nailing of the tibia was performed by Katsoulis et al in 2006. The principle findings were that 47.4% of patients had anterior knee pain at 2 years post tibial nailing. Worse results were found following a patella tendon splitting approach when compared with a medial para-patellar tendon approach. These conclusions were drawn from 20 studies including 1460 patients. Currently both approaches to the proximal tibia for nailing are used at JCMH Blanchardstown. A retrospective study was performed to compare the results of tendon splitting and tendon sparing approaches to tibial nails and to compare the results of JCMH with those stated in literature. Method. Patients who underwent tibial nailing in 2007 and 2008 were identified using the hospital coding system. Those patients who were treated under the care of Mr Kenny had a medial para-tendinous approach and those treated the care of Mr O'Flanagan and Mr Keogh had a tendon splitting approach. Apart from the approach the nailing technique using the Trigen Knee Nail and the post operative physiotherapy protocol were identical. Follow up included questions regarding knee pain and return to previous function. Specifically: Knee pain that affects daily life, Knee pain on kneeling, Knee pain on ascending or descending stairs, Return to work and Return to sports or active hobbies. Results. 61 patients were treated with intra-medullary nailing between 2007 and 2008 43 were available for follow for the purposes of this study (70 %). 25 had nails inserted via a tendon splitting approach and 18 via a tendon sparing approach. Only 5% of patients had knee pain that affected daily life, 16 % had pain on kneeling, 90% of patients who were previously at work returned to work and 75% of patients who were previously engaged in sports were able to return to these activities. Discussion. These results are significantly better than the figures stated in literature in terms of knee pain, return to work and sports. There was no significant difference between the 2 approaches to the tibia again in contradiction of available literature

Anterior knee pain is a frequent complaint of dissatisfied total knee arthroplasty patients. We hypothesize that the need to use the extensor mechanism to stabilise the knee during activity is a cause of anterior knee pain. Studies have shown that TKA patients often walk with a “quadriceps avoidance” gait, which may explain the phenomenon of anterior knee pain. Most TKA prostheses are designed to allow AP motion. This feature in knee implant design is to prevent the “kinematic conflict” that was predicted with the crossed four-bar-link model of knee motion, which holds that progressive posterior contact of the femur on the tibia (rollback) with flexion was obligatory for knee range of motion. It has been stated that preventing this motion overly “constrained” the knee and could lead to loosening and wear. Paradoxical motion has been seen with video fluoroscopy in knees after TKA. This motion is an anterior translation of the femur on the tibia early in knee flexion and is called paradoxical because it occurs opposite to the expected rollback. In fact, paradoxical motion is a consequence of the “unconstrained” articulation of the femoral component on the tibial component. During gait, just after heel strike as the foot is assuming a flat position on the floor, there is a significant vector of force from posterior to anterior. This vector has been calculated as 33% of body weight for walking at normal speed and could lead to a significant displacement of the femur forward on the tibia. It is countered by 1) the slope of the proximal tibia; 2) the articulation of the femur in the concavity of the tibial (with the firmly attached meniscus that deepens the concavity) on the medial side; and 3) the body mass vector combined with that of the contracting quadriceps. If a total knee prosthesis allows the femur to move forward, the posterior-to-anterior force just after heel strike acts to move the femur forward on the tibia (paradoxical motion). The patient, in an attempt to stabilise the knee, uses increased quadriceps contraction to prevent the forward motion of the femur. The forces required are significant and are not only found in the patella-femoral articulation but all through the retinaculum that covers the anterior part of the femur. As the extensor mechanism tires, patients begin using a quadriceps avoidance gait to adapt to the weakening extensor, and after a period of activity, the stress on the retinaculum leads to pain. AP stability can be improved through implant design by preventing AP motion through conformity of the femoral and tibial components. We have used a medially conforming ball-in-socket prosthesis as a revision component for patients with anterior knee pain, and have achieved resolution of the pain. Patients demonstrate a “posterior sag” at approximately 20 degrees of flexion (the degree of flexion that has the maximum posterior-to-anterior force during gait). When treated with a brace appropriate for stabilisation of the knee after PCL reconstruction, patients experienced a marked decrease in symptoms and this predicts a good result from revision surgery

From October 2005 to March 2014, we performed 46 arthroscopic surgeries for painful knee after knee arthroplasty. We excluded 16 cases for this study such as, unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, infection, patellar clunk syndrome, patellofemoral synovial hyperplasia, aseptic loosening, and follow-up period after arthroscopic surgery less than 6 months. Thirty cases matched the criteria. They had knee pain longer than 6 months after initial total knee arthroplasty (TKA), they had marked tenderness at medial and/or lateral tibiofemoral joint space, and also they complained walking pain with or without resting pain. Twenty one cases had initial TKA at our institute. In consideration of total number of TKA (n=489) in the period at our institute, incident rate of painful knee after initial TKA was 4.3%. Of 30 cases, 3 cases were male, and 27 cases were female. Types of implant were 4 in cruciate retaining type, 1 in cruciate substituting type, and 25 in posterior stabilized type. Age at the arthroscopy was 72 years old (51–87 years old), and period form initial TKA to pain perception was 18 months(1 – 144 months), and period from initial TKA to arthroscopic surgery was 29 months (6 – 125 months), and follow-up period after arthroscopy was 36 months (6 – 93 months). All arthroscopic debridement were performed through 3 portals, anteromedial, anterolateral, and proximal superomedial portal. Scar tissue impingements more than 5 mm wide were found in 87% of the cases both medial and lateral femorotibial joint spaces. Infrapatellar fat pad were covered with whitish scar tissue in all cases, and the scar tissue were connecting with the scar tissue which found at medial or lateral femorotibial joint spaces. We removed all scar tissue with motorized shaver or punches. At final follow-up, complete pain free in 63%, marked improvement in 3%, half improvement in 20%, slight improvement in 3%, and no change in 10% of the cases. Previously in the literatures, two reasons of the pain after total knee arthroplasty had been reported, patellar clunk syndrome, and patellar synovial hyperplasia. All cases reported this study had marked tenderness at tibiofemoral joint space. It was difficult to explain the tenderness by previously reported pathological mechanisms. We had to find another pathological mechanism to explain the pain of our cases. Painful knee due to scar tissue formation known as “infrapatellar contracture syndrome” after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery was previously reported. We hypothesized similar scar tissue formation should occur after TKA that caused painful knee. Continuity of the solid scar tissue between infrapatellar fat pad with the scar tissue at tibiofemoral joint space should be the cause of impingement at femorotibial joint even small size of scar tissue. From this study, we have to recognize that painful knee after TKA is not infrequent complication. And, if we could deny infection, and aseptic loosening in painful knee after TKA, arthroscopic debridement was good option to solve the pain. We could expect improvement of the pain more than half in 87% of cases

Introduction. Special high-flexion prosthetic designs show a small increase in postoperative flexion compared to standard designs and some papers show increased anterior knee pain with these prosthesis. However, no randomised controlled trails have been published which investigate difference in postoperative complaints of anterior knee pain. To assess difference in passive and active postoperative flexion and anterior knee pain we performed a randomized clinical trial including the two extremes of knee arthroplasty designs, being a high flex posterior stabilized rotating platform prosthesis versus a traditional cruciate retaining fixed bearing prosthesis. We hypothesised that the HF-PS design would allow more flexion, due to increased femoral rollback with less anterior knee pain than the CR design. We specifically assessed the following hypotheses:. Patients have increased flexion after HF-PS TKA compared to CR TKA, both passive and active. Patients show an increased femoral rollback in the HF-PS TKA as compared to the CR TKA. Patients receiving a HF-PS TKA design report reduced anterior knee pain relative to those receiving the CR TKA. Methods. In total 47 patients were randomly allocated to a standard cruciate retaining fixed bearing design (CR) in 23 patients and to a high-flexion posterior stabilized mobile bearing design (HF-PS) in 24 patients. Preoperative and one year postoperative we investigated active and passive maximal flexion. Furthermore, we used the VAS pain score at rest and during exercise and the Feller score to investigate anterior knee pain. A lateral roentgen photograph was used to measure femoral rollback during maximal flexion. Results. The HF-PS did show a significantly higher passive postoperative flexion; 120.8° (SD 10.3°) vs. 112.0° (SD 9.5°) for the CR group (p=0.004). The active postoperative flexion, VAS-pain score and Feller score did not show significant differences between both groups. Sub analysis with the HF-PS group showed a higher VAS-pain for the patients achieving ≥130° of flexion; 30.5 (SD 32.2) vs. 12.2 (SD 12.5) (p=0.16). The rollback was significantly lower in the CR group compared to the HF-PS group; 4.4 (SD 3.0) vs. 8.4 (SD 2.1). Conclusion. The present study showed a significant higher passive flexion in the Posterior Stabilised-High Flexion mobile bearing compared to a Cruciate Retaining fixed bearing prosthesis. However, this difference disappeared when comparing active flexion. The difference in passive flexion was probably related to a significantly lower rollback causing impingement in the CR prosthesis. No difference in anterior knee pain was found between both groups. However, a suggestion is raised that achieving high-flexion might lead to more patellofemoral complaints/anterior knee pain

Aim. To determine if the location and pattern of knee pain as described by the patients using the knee pain map was comparable with the intra articular pathology found on arthroscopy as well as to facilitate diagnosis based on pain. Methods. There were fifty five consecutive patients with acute and chronic knee pain participating in the study and they subsequently underwent arthroscopy of the knee joint as therapeutic or diagnostic procedure in day surgery. Those patients with extra articular pathologies, referred pain hip, back and foot were excluded from the study. All the participants were consented for the study; subjective data was recorded on the standardised knee pain map that included visual analogue pain scale preoperatively on the day of admission for arthroscopy. The findings of the arthroscopy including EUA were recorded on the on standard arthroscopy forms used in our department by the operating surgeon. Results. Patients on the knee pain map most often recorded sharp/stabbing pain (72%), followed by diffuse dull pain (14.5%), mixed dull and sharp pain (10 %) and burning pain (3.5%). 82% of the localising pain pattern recorded on the knee pain map by the patients corresponded to the intra articular lesion found during knee arthroscopy. 18 % of the pain mapping location and pattern was not very specific to the intrarticular arthroscopic lesions. Conclusions. The results from our study indicate, majority of the patients could map the knee pain location and pattern correlating to the knee arthroscopic findings. Furthermore, the knee pain mapping can be used as a reliable tool to assist the clinician to determine the specific knee pain patterns correlating with intra-articular lesion

The prevalence of anterior knee pain in the general population is relatively high. Patellar height, and more specific patella alta, is one of the several factors that have been associated with anterior knee pain, but the precise mechanism by which patella alta leads to a less favourable situation in terms of patellofemoral contact force, contact area and contact pressure, is poorly understood. The recent availability of validated dynamic knee simulators and advances in the analysis of contact force and area, give us today the possibility to study the influence of patellar position and patellar height on patellofemoral biomechanical characterisitics. Simulating a knee squat in different configurations with variable predetermined patellar height, reveals a clear association of patella alta with the highest maximal patellofemoral contact force and contact pressure, probably as a consequence of the delay in tendofemoral contact. When averaged across all flexion angles, the normal height of the patella seems to be the most optimal position in terms of contact pressures. This may provide a biomechanical explanation for anterior knee pain in young patients with patella alta and in older patients following total knee prosthesis resulting in an altered patellar position in terms of height

There are two types of pain, mechanical and non-mechanical. Mechanical pain hurts with movement/use, is not constant and is helped by morphine-type products. Non-mechanical pain is different. It is present 24 hours a day, often worse at night, and except for the pain of infection, is not relieved by morphine-type products. If the cause of mechanical pain can be determined, it can be corrected by an operation. The usual cause of postoperative mechanical knee pain nowadays is multifactorial, i.e. a combination of minor errors, none of which on their own would require revision. Non-mechanical pain, other than infection, is much more difficult to handle. The commonest cause is not really a pain complaint, it is disappointment due to a failure of expectation. It does not matter how often you tell patients, some patients still think they should step in a drive away. A lot of these failures of expectations become much more realistic by the end of year one. There are several other categories. Incipient osteoarthritis or sensitive people (The Princess and the Pea). If the pain complaints were severe with minimal arthritis, an operation is not likely to help. The patient on disability for no clear reason is unlikely to get a good result and Workmen's Compensation Board and motor vehicle accident patients are also a very bad prognostic sign and will often produce the postoperative painful knee. Preoperative use of large doses of morphine is also a very bad sign. It is not clear if it is the morphine, which influences the patient or the patient, who influences the morphine. There are several pain syndromes, some of which are purely psychiatric such as Conversion Disorders and Somatoform Pain Disorders. Treatment of purely psychiatric conditions should be a referral to a psychiatrist is in order. Complex regional pain syndrome is an organic pain disorder. Type 2 is causalgia or an actual nerve injury. This is unusual following knee replacement other than the odd drop foot, which even after recovery, leaves an area of dysaethesia on the dorsum of the foot. Type 1 used to be called reflex sympathetic dystrophy. This is not uncommon after total knee replacement. I managed to collect more than 40 cases. One problem is that the diagnosis to some extent is a diagnosis of exclusion. If the diagnosis can be made, then treatment is available including Cymbalta, Lyrica or Gabapentin. I have found most success with lumbar sympathetic blocks, but it is difficult to find someone, who can do these. Some patients have been treated with implantable electrical spinal stimulators with variable results. The current flavour of the month pain syndrome is called central sensitization. The theory is that if someone has pain for more than six months, then there will be changes in the brain, which will remain after the original pain goes away, hence, the title the pain in the brain syndrome. If this theory were correct, then we as arthroplasty surgeons have been collectively wasting our time for the last 40 years as no patient would have recovered. The likelihood, therefore, of this theory having any basis in reality is pretty remote. Fortunately, by the end of year one, the vast majority of our knee replacement patients are reasonably content with the procedure

We performed an advancement and medial transfer of the tibial tuberosity based on Fulkerson's principle to treat intractable anterior knee pain associated with patellofemoral maltracking diagnosed by dynamic MRI. Between January 1998 and July 2000 twenty-two patients had 28 knees operated for anterior knee pain. There were 4 men and 18 women with a mean age of 28 years (range 18-41). Indications for surgery were [a] failure to improve after six months of physiotherapy and [b] patellofemoral maltracking evident in dynamic MRI. Mean follow-up was for 37 months (23 – 42). Knee instability score modified by Fulkerson was employed for objective and subjective assessment. Objectively 22 (79%) knees achieved good to excellent results. Four knees (14%) had fair, and two (7%) had poor results. Excellent and very good results were seen in 20 knees. These patients were a younger age group (mean age 21 years) and had minimal degeneration (grade I-II) of the patellofemoral joints. Two patients achieved good results. One of them had moderate (grade III) and one minimal (II) arthritis. Three knees with fair results had advanced (grade IV or V) and one had moderate (grade III) arthritis. Out of two patients who had a poor result, one had advanced degeneration (grade V) that later required a patellofemoral joint resurfacing. The other was a 24 year old woman with grade II changes. She was treated by the pain therapy team. Anterior displacement of the tuberosity in the presented study was kept to 5 mm to avoid the possible complications of wound break down. The overall length and depth of the osteotomy was also reduced to minimise risk of fracture and commence early mobilisation. Based on our results there is a strong case of justification for Anteromedialisation of tibial tuberosity using a smaller length of osteotomy and lesser degree of anteriorisation in carefully selected patients with Patellofemoral arthralgia associated with maltracking patella

Introduction. Acute poliomyelitis is a very rare disease in western countries, however the remnant of the pathology can be find among the adult patients. In poliomyelitis, sensation is normal and patients may suffer from painful etiologies. Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) with non-hinged or semi hinged prosthesis systems may be a good options to relief the pain in poliomyelitic patients, however the knee remains unstable. Using the hinged system implant may be the good option to resolve the late. Although the main concern in case of hinged implant usage is the mechanical stress which is directly transferred to the bone surface in contact with the implant. This may leads to implant mobilization and consequently failure. Methods and Materials. From 2004 to 2014, 14 TKA were performed in poliomyelitic patients with secondary knee pain. All patients were presented with extensor compartment hyposthenia and reduced antigravity function. In all patients a third generation rotating hinged knees (RHK) implant system (Zimmer, Warsaw, IN, USA) was applied. Bilateral TKA was performed in only one case. The mean age at the time of surgery was 56 years (ranged 48–77). Mean follow-up was 60 months (24–112). Results Due to post-operative infection, one patient underwent knee arthrodesis and excluded from the study. In one case, patellar fracture occurred 3 month following the surgery and treated non-surgically. Pain relief was observed in all patients following the surgery without any major complication. Mean objective score according to knee society knee scoring system was improved from 28 (16–51) preoperatively to 79 (72–88) postoperatively. Mean functional score was improved from 24 (5–35) preoperatively to 66 (50–70) postoperatively. At last follow up the mean range of motion was 90° (75°−100°). Following radiographic control at last follow-up all implants was stable without any sign of failure such as mobilization, radiolucency line or osteolysis. Conclusion. Providing stable knee implant system is the most important factor in addition to pain relief in case of poliomyelitic patients with knee pain. In our experience, third generation RHK supplied satisfactory clinical results in poliomyelitic patients supplying good implant stability without interfere with existing intrinsic stability of the lower limb. We believe that good results were achieved due to particular specification of RHK implant including mild 3° of hyperextension and weight distribution mode in which 95% transfer to polyethylene insert and only 5% to hinged compartment that help to restore the stability in such a particular patients also in case of late post-polio syndrome

Femoral component fracture is a rarely reported but devastating complication of total knee arthroplasty. It has occurred most frequently with Whiteside Ortholoc II replacements uncemented knee replacements. Presentation may be with acute pain, progressive pain or returning deformity. It occurs more commonly in the medial condyle of the femoral component. It is rarely seen in cemented replacements. All currently available literature describing fractures of condylar replacements, both cemented and uncemented. Predisposing factors include varus deformity either pre or post operatively. The mechanism of failure is thought to be failure of the infiltration of bone into the replacement. This is often due to polyethylene wear or metallosis causing abnormal tissue reaction with or without osteolysis. We present the case of a fractured Press Fit Condylar (PFC) cemented implant (DePuy, Johnson&Johnson, Raynham, Massachusettes, USA) affecting the medial condyle. To our knowledge this is only the third reported case of fracture in a PFC implant, and the first in a cemented PFC implant. Our patient was a 64 year old male who presented with unresolving knee pain post total knee arthroplasty, caused by fatigue fracture of the medial condyle of the femoral component. This was identified as loosening on plain radiographs and replaced with a revision prosthesis with a good post operative result. Given our aging population and with the increase of joint arthroplasty, this case sheds light on a potentially under recognised and increasingly important cause of knee pain following arthroplasty

Introduction. Anterior knee pain (AKP) is a recognized cause of patient's dissatisfaction after total knee arthroplasty. Potential implant/technique related contributors to AKP are patellofemoral maltracking, trochlear geometry, femoral malrotation, patellar tilt and overstuffing. The primary aim of this prospective, matched pair study was to assess the safety, efficacy and performance of an anatomic patella and its effect on AKP in in a matched pair analysis. Material and Methods. Between July 2012 and May 2013, 55 consecutive posterior stabilized cemented Attune TKAs (Depuy) were matched to the PFC Sigma group based on age, gender, and body mass index (BMI). All surgeries were performed via medial parapatellar approach with patellar resurfacing. Clinical and radiographic analysis was performed prospectively with minimum 6 month follow-up. Radiographic measurements included overall limb alignment, anterior offset, posterior offset, joint line, patellar thickness, patellar tilt and patellar displacement by two independent observers. Results. The mean functional outcomes were similar in both groups. AKP incidence between Attune and PFC was statistically insignificant (3.6% and 3.8%). Radiographic analysis revealed no mal-alignment, or osteolysis. No complications such as infection, patellar fracture, subluxation or dislocations were observed. Discussion. Attune knee design demonstrates excellent short-term safety and efficacy. At minimum 6-month follow-up, anatomical patella with shows less AKP than single radius patella design. Longer follow-up is required to assess functional outcome this design

In years past, the most common reason for revision following knee replacement was polyethylene wear. A more recent study indicates that polyethylene wear is relatively uncommon as a cause for total knee revision counting for only 10% or fewer of revisions. The most common reason for revision currently is aseptic loosening followed closely by instability and infection. The time to revision was surprisingly short. In a recent series only 30% of knees were greater than 5 years from surgery at the time of revision. The most common time interval was less than 2 years. This is likely because of the higher incidence of infection and instability that occurs most commonly at a relatively early time frame. Evaluation of a painful total knee should take into account these findings. All total knees that are painful within 5 years of surgery should be assumed to be infected until proven otherwise. Therefore, virtually all should be aspirated for cell count, differential, and culture. Alpha-defensin is also available in cases in which a patient may have been on antibiotics within a month or less, as well as cases in which diagnosis is a challenge for some reason. Instability can be diagnosed with physical exam focusing on mid-flexion instability which can be usually determined with the patient seated and the knee in mid-flexion, with the foot flat on the floor at which point sagittal plane laxity can be discerned. This is also frequently associated with symptoms of giving way and recurring effusions and difficulty descending stairs. A new phenomenon of tibial de-bonding has been described, which can be a challenge to diagnose. Radiographs can appear normal when loosening occurs between the implant and the cement mantle. This seems to be more common with the use of higher viscosity cement. Obviously this is technique dependent since good results have been reported with the use of high viscosity cement. Component malposition can cause stiffness and pain and relatively good results have been reported by component revision when malrotation has been confirmed with CT scan. When infection, instability and loosening are not present, extra-articular causes should be ruled out including lumbar spine, vascular compromise, complex regional pain syndromes and fibromyalgia, and peri-articular causes such as bursitis, tendonitis, tendon impingement among others. One of the most common causes of pain following total knee is unrealistic patient expectations. Performing total knee replacement in early stages of arthritis with only mild to moderate symptoms and radiographic changes has been associated with persistent pain and dissatisfaction. It may be prudent to obtain the immediate preoperative x-rays to determine if early intervention was undertaken and patients have otherwise normal appearing total knee x-rays and a negative work up. A recent study indicated that this was likely a cause or a major contributing factor to persistent pain following otherwise a well performed knee replacement. A national multicenter study of the appropriateness of indications for TKA also indicated that early intervention was a major cause of persistent pain, dissatisfaction, and failure to improve following total knee replacement.

Purpose. Anterior knee pain has been relieved by resection of the infrapatellar plica (IPP). The question is: How? The hypothesis is: the IPP acts as an intra-articular ligament, a mechanical link between the forces of knee motion, the fat pad (FP) and the distal femur, holding the FP captive through the arc of motion. Release of the IPP severs this link, allowing the highly innervated FP to move freely. This may allow any underlying pathologic process to heal. Method. Anatomic dissection: In 12 knees, the extensor apparatus was released from the femur and retracted distally allowing relationships to be examined. Cadaver studies: Lateral fluoroscopy was used as well as direct arthroscopic visualization to control implantation of tantalum beads or radiographic contrast material in the FP and IPP. The knee was taken through the arc of motion repeatedly. The femoral attachment of the IPP was then released and knee motion repeated. Traction on the extensor apparatus simulated active motion. In-Vivo Study: The IRB approved study of 12 volunteers undergoing planned knee arthroscopy under local anesthesia. Contrast was placed in the FP and IPP under lateral fluoroscopic control. Passive, then active motion then a quads-set manoeuvre was performed. The IPP was resected and knee motion again recorded. Results. Knees without IPP (4) demonstrated FPs that were lobular, with lateral bodies, and a central process. The fibrous synovial layer of the capsule bypassed the FP inserting on the superior aspect of the menisci. Knees with an IPP (8) showed a FP that was covered by fibrous synovium. The fibrous elements of the capsule coalesced on either side of the patellar in folds that merged with the alar folds. These fibrous elements ramified over and through the FP and were continuous with the upper portion of the IPP medially and laterally. Inferiorly the lower portion of the IPP merged with fibrous synovium that attached to the superior aspect of the menisci and the inter-meniscal ligament. The cadaver studies demonstrated that the IPP elongated with FP distortion as the knee approached full extension and flexion, and that the IPP was lax through mid arc. Release of the IPP at the femur eliminated almost all of the distortion through the full arc. The In-Vivo study replicated the cadaver observations for passive and active motion. The quads set manoeuvre caused further distortion of the FP with the patella moving one cm proximally. Release of the IPP eliminated FP distortion. Conclusion. The IPP seems to act as a true ligamentum mucosum. By virtue of its central femoral attachment if captures the FP against the end of the femur, loosely in mid arc, but with distortion of the FP and stretch of the IPP approaching full flexion and extension. This has been demonstrated in both cadavers and in in-vivo for the first time. Any pathologic process affecting the highly innervated FP will likely be improved by removal of the capture effect of the IPP

The true results of revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) are not fully understood, for a variety of understandable reasons. But it is has been clear for decades that revision without a diagnosis is likely to fail. The evaluation of the problem TKA should be systematic (follow the same scheme every time) and comprehensive (all possibilities should be considered even if one diagnosis seems obvious).

Evaluation begins, as with all of medicine with a list of possible causes: the mechanisms of failure. John Moreland was the first to describe a coherent system which needed only one simple addition to be complete: 1.) Prosthetic joint infection; 2.) Extensor disruption; 3.) Patella and malrotation; 4.) Loose; 5.) Component breakage; 6.) PP fracture; 7.) Poor motion; and 8.) Tibial femoral instability.

Evaluation begins with the history, where 10 questions in particular are useful: 1.) What seems to be the problem? 2.) Was the “knee” ever successful after surgery? If there was never pain relief, is the current pain, the same or different? 3.) Standard pain quality questions - Location, duration, frequency, quality, exacerbating, ameliorating. 4.) Swelling? 5.) Stiffness? 6.) Giving way? 7.) Weakness? 8.) Things “just don't feel right”? 9.) Possible sepsis questions - Fever, chills, sources, primary TKA healing. 10.) Mood, social situation?

The physical exam should cover these ten points: 1.) Active extension; 2.) Rising from chair; 3.) Gait: hip, knee alignment, knee instability; 4.) Hip (internal rotation); 5.) Inspection; 6.) Tenderness; 7.) ROM; 8.) Stability (extension and 30–45 degrees flexion; 9.) Sitting on edge of exam table (knee at 90 degrees); and 10.) Step up on low stool (stair).

Investigations include: 1.) ESR + CRP; 2.) CBC; 3.) HGB- anemia; 4.) Lymphocytes- nutrition; 5.) GGT- alcohol abuse; 6.) Albumen- nutrition; 7.) HbA1c- diabetic control.

Imaging includes: 1.) Single leg weightbearing AP; 2.) Lateral; 3.) Merchant; 4.) Full length (hip-knee-ankle); 5.) AP pelvis; 6.) CT scan; and 7.) (Technitium bone scan).

Persistent post-surgical pain remains a problem after knee replacement with some studies reporting up to 20% incidence. Pain is usually felt by those who do not operate to be a monolithic entity. All orthopaedic surgeons know that this is not the case. At its most basic level, pain can be divided into two categories, mechanical and non-mechanical.

Mechanical pain is like the pain of a fresh fracture. If the patient does not move, the pain is less. This type of pain is relieved by opiates. Mechanical pain is seen following knee replacement, but is fortunately becoming less frequent. It is caused by a combination of malrotations and maltranslations, often minor, which on their own would not produce problems. The combination of them, however, may produce a knee in which there is overload of the extensor mechanism or of the medial stabilizing structures. If these minor mechanical problems can be identified, then corrective surgery will help.

Non-mechanical pain is present on a constant basis. It is not significantly worsened by activities. Opiates may make the patient feel better, but they do not change the essential nature of the pain. Non-mechanical pain falls into three broad groups, infection, neuropathic and perceived pain. Infection pain is usually relieved by opiates. Since some of this pain is probably due to pressure, its inclusion in the non-mechanical pain group is questionable, but it is better left there so that the surgeon always considers it. Low grade chronic infection can be extremely difficult to diagnose. Loosening of noncemented knee components is so rare that when it is noted radiologically, infection should be very high on the list of suspicions. The name neuropathic pain suggests that we know much more about it than we do in reality. Causalgia or CRPS-type two is rare following knee replacement. CRPS type one or reflex sympathetic dystrophy probably does exist, but it is probably over-diagnosed especially by the author of this abstract. The optimum treatment I have found is lumbar sympathetic blocks. Perceived pain is the largest group. It does not matter what you tell the patient, some believe a new knee should be like a new car, i.e. you step into it and drive away. The fact that they have to work to make it work is horrifying. Some of this pain is actually mechanical, especially in those with no benefits such as hairstylists. Perceived pain is widespread. The classic treatise on this is Dr. Ian McNabb's book “Backache”. It should be studied by all orthopaedic surgeons, who wish to understand pain complaints.

Any experienced knee surgeon will have his list of red flags or caveats. These are often politically incorrect and this information is transferred to young surgeons, usually in dim bars late at night. I will list only a few. If the patient comes in with a form asking for a disability pension on the first visit. If the patient's mother answers the questions. If the patient comes in taking massive doses of opiates. If the patient is referred to you by a surgeon, who does more knee replacements than you do. There is also the recently described Fern Silverman's syndrome.

Persistent post-surgical pain (PPSP) remains a problem after knee replacement with some studies reporting up to 20% incidence. Pain is usually felt by those who do not operate to be a monolithic entity. All orthopaedic surgeons know that this is not the case. At its most basic level, pain can be divided into two categories, mechanical and non-mechanical.

Mechanical pain is like the pain of a fresh fracture. If the patient does not move, the pain is less. This type of pain is relieved by opiates. Mechanical pain is seen following knee replacement, but is becoming less frequent. It is caused by a combination of malrotations and maltranslations, often minor, which on their own would not produce problems. The combination of them, however, may produce a knee in which there is overload of the extensor mechanism or of the medial stabilizing structures. If these minor mechanical problems can be identified, then corrective surgery will help.

Non-mechanical pain is present on a constant basis. It is not significantly worsened by activities. Opiates may make the patient feel better, but they do not change the essential nature of the pain. Non-mechanical pain falls into three broad groups, infection, neuropathic and perceived pain. Infection pain is usually relieved by opiates. Since some of this pain is probably due to pressure, its inclusion in the non-mechanical pain group is questionable, but it is better left there so that the surgeon always considers it. Low grade chronic infection can be extremely difficult to diagnose. Loosening of noncemented knee components is so rare that when it is noted radiologically, infection should be very high on the list of suspicions. The name neuropathic pain suggests that we know much more about it than we do in reality. Causalgia or CRPS-type two is rare following knee replacement. CRPS-type one or reflex sympathetic dystrophy probably does exist, but it is probably over-diagnosed. The optimum treatment I have found is lumbar sympathetic blocks. Lyrica, Gabapentin and Cymbalta may also help. Perceived pain is the largest group. It does not matter what you tell the patient, some believe a new knee should be like a new car, i.e. you step into it and drive away. The fact that they have to work to make it work is horrifying. Perceived pain is widespread. The classic treatise, Dr. Ian McNabb's book “Backache”, should be studied by all who wish to understand pain complaints.

Any experienced knee surgeon will have his list of red flags or caveats. I will list only a few. If the patient comes in with a form asking for a disability pension on the first visit. If the patient's mother answers the questions. If the patient comes in taking massive doses of opiates. If the patient is referred to you by a surgeon who does more knee replacements than you do.

There are other issues such as good old fibromyalgia, which appears to have gone the way of the dodo. It has been replaced by something equally silly called central sensitization. The theory of central sensitization is that if one has pain somewhere or other for three months or six months or whatever, there are going to be changes in the brain and spinal cord. It then does not matter what happens to the original pain, i.e. whether or not it goes away, the pain will persist because of the changes in the brain, hence, the title of the pain in the brain syndrome. If this theory was correct, we might as well all go home because we have all been wasting our time for the last 30 years because none of our patients would get any better. After all, all of our patients have had pain for a lot longer than three months, many of them have been involved in trauma and sometimes, compensation is at issue. The pain in the brain theory, therefore, sounds about as realistic as the flat earth society or the treatment of Galileo.

The causes of pain after TKA can be local (intra or extra-articular) or referred from a remote source. Local intra-articular causes include prosthetic loosening, infection, aseptic synovitis (wear debris, hemarthrosis, instability, allergy), impingement (bone soft tissue or prosthetic), an un-resurfaced patella and stress fracture of bone or the prosthesis. Some surgeons think that isolated component mal-rotation can be a source of pain, but component mal-rotation is rarely present in the absence of other technical abnormalities.

Local extra-articular causes include pes anserine bursitis, saphenous neuroma/dysasthesias, post-tourniquet dysasthesias, complex regional pain syndrome and vascular claudication.

Referred pain is most often from an arthritic hip or radicular pain from a spinal source. Patients with fibromyalgia can have persistent pain following their knee arthroplasty and should be warned of this possibility.

Evaluation of the patient includes a history, physical exam, joint aspiration and plain radiographs. In selected patients, an anesthetic joint injection, bone scan, CT scan or MRI with metal subtraction may be helpful in the diagnosis. The joint aspiration should include a CBC and differential as well as an aerobic and anaerobic culture. Fungal and TB cultures are sometimes indicated.

Re-operation for pain of unknown etiology following TKA is unlikely to yield an excellent result and both surgeons and patients should be aware of this probability.

Persistent post-surgical pain (PPSP) remains a problem after knee replacement with some studies reporting up to 20% incidence. At its most basic level, pain can be divided into two categories, mechanical and non-mechanical.

Mechanical pain is like the pain of a fresh fracture. If the patient does not move, the pain is less. This type of pain is relieved by opiates. Mechanical pain is seen following knee replacement, but is fortunately becoming less frequent. It is caused by a combination of malrotations and maltranslations, often minor, which on their own would not produce problems. The combination of them, however, may produce a knee in which there is overload of the extensor mechanism or of the medial stabilizing structures. If these minor mechanical problems can be identified, then corrective surgery will help.

Non-mechanical pain is present on a constant basis. It is not significantly worsened by activities. Opiates may make the patient feel better, but they do not change the essential nature of the pain. Non-mechanical pain falls into three broad groups, infection, neuropathic and perceived pain.

Infection pain is usually relieved by opiates. Since some of this pain is probably due to pressure, its inclusion in the non-mechanical pain group is questionable, but it is better left there so that the surgeon always considers it. Low grade chronic infection can be extremely difficult to diagnose. Loosening of noncemented knee components is so rare that when it is noted radiologically, infection should be very high on the list of suspicions.

The name neurogenic pain suggests that we know much more about it than we do in reality. Causalgia or CRPS-type two is rare following knee replacement. CRPS type one or reflex sympathetic dystrophy probably does exist, but it is probably over-diagnosed especially by the author of this abstract. The optimum treatment I have found is lumbar sympathetic blocks. Lyrica, Gabapentin and Cymbalta may also help.

Perceived pain is the largest group. It does not matter what you tell patient, some believe a new knee should be like a new car, i.e. you step into it and drive away. The fact that they have to work to make it work is horrifying. Some of this pain is actually mechanical, especially in those with no benefits such as hairstylists. Perceived pain is widespread. The classic treatment on this is Dr. Ian McNabb's book “Backache”. It should be studied by all orthopaedic surgeons, who wish to understand pain complaints.

There are other issues such as good old fibromyalgia, which appears to have gone the way of the dodo. It has been replaced by something equally silly called central sensitization. The theory of central sensitization is that if one has pain somewhere or other for three months or six months or whatever, there are going to be changes in the brain and spinal cord. It then does not matter what happens to the original pain, i.e. whether or not it goes away, the pain will persist because of the changes in the brain, hence, the title of the pain in the brain syndrome.

If this theory was correct, we might as well all go home because we have all been wasting our time for the last 30 years because none of our patients would get any better. After all, all of our patients have had pain for a lot longer than three months, many of them have been involved in trauma and sometimes, compensation is at issue. The pain in the brain theory, therefore, sounds about as realistic as the flat earth society or the treatment of Galileo.