Aims. The aim of this study was to report the meaningful values of the EuroQol five-dimension three-level questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L) and EuroQol visual analogue scale (EQ-VAS) in patients undergoing primary knee arthroplasty (KA). Methods. This is a retrospective study of patients undergoing primary KA for osteoarthritis in a university teaching hospital (Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh) (1 January 2013 to 31 December 2019). Pre- and postoperative (one-year) data were prospectively collected for 3,181 patients (median age 69.9 years (interquartile range (IQR) 64.2 to 76.1); females, n = 1,745 (54.9%); median BMI 30.1 kg/m. 2. (IQR 26.6 to 34.2)). The reliability of the EQ-5D-3L was measured using Cronbach’s alpha. Responsiveness was determined by calculating the anchor-based minimal clinically important difference (MCID), the minimal important change (MIC) (cohort and individual), the patient-acceptable symptom state (PASS) predictive of satisfaction, and the minimal detectable change at 90% confidence intervals (MDC-90). Results. The EQ-5D-3L demonstrated good internal consistency with an overall Cronbach alpha of 0.75 (preoperative) and 0.88 (postoperative), respectively. The MCID for the Index score was 0.085 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.042 to 0.127) and EQ-VAS was 6.41 (95% CI 3.497 to 9.323). The MIC. COHORT. was 0.289 for the EQ-5D and 5.27 for the EQ-VAS. However, the MIC. INDIVIDUAL. for both the EQ-5D-3L Index (0.105) and EQ-VAS (-1) demonstrated poor-to-acceptable reliability. The MDC-90 was 0.023 for the EQ-5D-3L Index and 1.0 for the EQ-VAS. The PASS for the postoperative EQ-5D-3L Index and EQ-VAS scores predictive of patient satisfaction were 0.708 and 77.0, respectively. Conclusion. The meaningful values of the EQ-5D-3L Index and EQ-VAS scores can be used to measure clinically relevant changes in health-related quality of life in patients undergoing primary KA. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2022;11(9):619–628

Abstract. Introduction. There is a longstanding presumed association between obesity, complications, and revision surgery in primary knee arthroplasty. This has more recently been called into question, particularly in centres where a high volume of arthroplasty is performed. We investigated the correlation between Body Mass Index (BMI), mortality, and revision surgery. Method. This was a cohort study of at least 10 years following primary knee arthroplasty from a single high volume arthroplasty unit. Mortality and revision rates were collected from all patients who underwent primary knee arthroplasty between 2009 and 2010. Kaplan Meier analysis was performed. Results. There were 1161 female and 948 male patients with a mean age of 69 (21 to 97). All cause survivorship excluding mortality was 97.2% up to 13yrs with a minimum of 10 years. The revision rate in this series was 2.8% with no significant difference in revision rates after 10 year between patients with BMI above and below 40 (p=0.438). There was no significant difference in 10-year mortality between patients above and below a BMI of 40 (p=0.238). Conclusion. This study shows no significant difference in the long term survival of total knee replacement between patients with normal and high BMI. Careful consideration should be given before rationing surgery based on BMI alone

Aims. This study investigates whether primary knee arthroplasty (KA) restores health-related quality of life (HRQoL) to levels expected in the general population. Methods. This retrospective case-control study compared HRQoL data from two sources: patients undergoing primary KA in a university-teaching hospital (2013 to 2019), and the Health Survey for England (HSE; 2010 to 2012). Patient-level data from the HSE were used to represent the general population. Propensity score matching was used to balance covariates and facilitate group comparisons. A propensity score was estimated using logistic regression based upon the covariates sex, age, and BMI. Two matched cohorts with 3,029 patients each were obtained for the adjusted analyses (median age 70.3 (interquartile range (IQR) 64 to 77); number of female patients 3,233 (53.4%); median BMI 29.7 kg/m. 2. (IQR 26.5 to 33.7)). HRQoL was measured using the three-level version of the EuroQol five-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L), and summarized using the Index and EuroQol visual analogue scale (EQ-VAS) scores. Results. Patients awaiting KA had significantly lower EQ-5D-3L Index scores than the general population (median 0.620 (IQR 0.16 to 0.69) vs median 0.796 (IQR 0.69 to 1.00); p < 0.001). By one year postoperatively, the median EQ-5D-3L Index score improved significantly in the KA cohort (mean change 0.32 (SD 0.33); p < 0.001), and demonstrated no clinically relevant differences when compared to the general population (median 0.796 (IQR 0.69 to 1.00) vs median 0.796 (IQR 0.69 to 1.00)). Compared to the general population cohort, the postoperative EQ-VAS was significantly higher in the KA cohort (p < 0.001). Subgroup comparisons demonstrated that older age groups had statistically better EQ-VAS scores than matched peers in the general population. Conclusion. Patients awaiting KA for osteoarthritis had significantly poorer HRQoL than the general population. However, within one year of surgery, primary KA restored HRQoL to levels expected for the patient’s age-, BMI-, and sex-matched peers. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(4):365–372

Aims. The aim of this study was to assess factors associated with the estimated lifetime risk of revision surgery after primary knee arthroplasty (KA). Methods. All patients from the Scottish Arthroplasty Project dataset undergoing primary KA during the period 1 January 1998 to 31 December 2019 were included. The cumulative incidence function for revision and death was calculated up to 20 years. Adjusted analyses used cause-specific Cox regression modelling to determine the influence of patient factors. The lifetime risk was calculated as a percentage for patients aged between 45 and 99 years using multiple-decrement life table methodology. Results. The estimated lifetime risk of revision ranged between 32.7% (95% confidence interval (CI) 22.6 to 47.3) for patients aged 45 to 49 years and 0.6% (95% CI 0.1 to 4.5) for patients aged over 90 years. At 20 years, the overall cumulative incidence of revision (6.8% (95% CI 6.6 to 7.0)) was significantly less than that of death (66.3% (95% CI 65.4 to 67.1)). Adjusted analyses demonstrated converse effect of increasing age on risk of revision (hazard ratio (HR) 0.5 (95% CI 0.5 to 0.6)) and death (HR 3.6 (95% CI 3.4 to 3.7)). Male sex was associated with increased risks of revision (HR 1.1 (95% CI 1.1 to 1.2); p < 0.001) and death (HR 1.4 (95% CI 1.3 to 1.4); p < 0.001). Compared to patients undergoing primary KA for osteoarthritis, patients with inflammatory arthropathy had a higher risk of death (HR 1.7 (95% CI 1.7 to 1.8); p < 0.001), but were less likely to be revised (HR 0.9 (95% CI 0.7 to 1.0); p < 0.001). Patients with a greater number of comorbidities (HR 1.4 (95% CI 1.3 to 1.4)) and greater levels of socioeconomic deprivation (HR 1.4 (95% CI 1.4 to 1.5)) were at increased risk of death, but neither increased the risk of revision. Conclusion. The estimated lifetime risk of revision KA varied depending on patient sex, age, and underlying diagnosis. Patients aged between 45 and 49 years had a one in three risk of undergoing revision surgery within their lifetime, which decreased with age to one in 159 in those aged 90 years or more. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(12):1313–1322

Aims. The metabolic equivalent of task (MET) score examines patient performance in relation to energy expenditure before and after knee arthroplasty. This study assesses its use in a knee arthroplasty population in comparison with the widely used Oxford Knee Score (OKS) and EuroQol five-dimension index (EQ-5D), which are reported to be limited by ceiling effects. Methods. A total of 116 patients with OKS, EQ-5D, and MET scores before, and at least six months following, unilateral primary knee arthroplasty were identified from a database. Procedures were performed by a single surgeon between 2014 and 2019 consecutively. Scores were analyzed for normality, skewness, kurtosis, and the presence of ceiling/floor effects. Concurrent validity between the MET score, OKS, and EQ-5D was assessed using Spearman’s rank. Results. Postoperatively the OKS and EQ-5D demonstrated negative skews in distribution, with high kurtosis at six months and one year. The OKS demonstrated a ceiling effect at one year (15.7%) postoperatively. The EQ-5D demonstrated a ceiling effect at six months (30.2%) and one year (39.8%) postoperatively. The MET score did not demonstrate a skewed distribution or ceiling effect either at six months or one year postoperatively. Weak-moderate correlations were noted between the MET score and conventional scores at six months and one year postoperatively. Conclusion. In contrast to the OKS and EQ-5D, the MET score was normally distributed postoperatively with no ceiling effect. It is worth consideration as an arthroplasty outcome measure, particularly for patients with high expectations. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(3):129–137

Aims. The aim of this study was to identify variables associated with time to revision, demographic details associated with revision indication, and type of prosthesis employed, and to describe the survival of hinge knee arthroplasty (HKA) when used for first-time knee revision surgery and factors that were associated with re-revision. Methods. Patient demographic details, BMI, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, indication for revision, surgical approach, surgeon grade, implant type (fixed and rotating), time of revision from primary implantation, and re-revision if undertaken were obtained from the National Joint Registry data for England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the Isle of Man over an 18-year period (2003 to 2021). Results. There were 3,855 patient episodes analyzed with a median age of 73 years (interquartile range (IQR) 66 to 80), and the majority were female (n = 2,480, 64.3%). The median time to revision from primary knee arthroplasty was 1,219 days (IQR 579 to 2,422). Younger age (p < 0.001), decreasing ASA grade (p < 0.001), and indications for revision of sepsis (p < 0.001), unexplained pain (p < 0.001), non-polyethylene wear (p < 0.001), and malalignment (p < 0.001) were all associated with an earlier time to revision from primary implantation. The median follow-up was 4.56 years (range 0.00 to 17.52), during which there were 410 re-revisions. The overall unadjusted probability of re-revision for all revision HKAs at one, five, and ten years after surgery were 2.7% (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.2 to 3.3), 10.7% (95% CI 9.6 to 11.9), and 16.2% (95% CI 14.5 to 17.9), respectively. Male sex (p < 0.001), younger age (p < 0.001), revision for septic indications (p < 0.001) or implant fracture (p = 0.010), a fixed hinge (p < 0.001), or surgery performed by a non-consultant grade (p = 0.023) were independently associated with an increased risk of re-revision. Conclusion. There were several factors associated with time to first revision. The re-revision rate was 16.2% at ten years; however, the risk factors associated with an increased risk of re-revision could be used to counsel patients regarding their outcome. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(1):47–55

Abstract. INTRODUCTION. This study investigates whether primary knee arthroplasty (KA) restores health-related quality of life (HRQoL) to levels expected in the general population. METHODOLOGY. This retrospective case-control study utilises two sources: patients undergoing primary KA from a University Teaching hospital; and individual-level data from the Health Survey for England which was used to represent the General Population. Propensity score matching was used to balance covariates (sex, age and body mass index (BMI)) and facilitate group comparisons. Two matched cohorts with 3029 patients each were obtained for the adjusted analyses (median age 70.3 interquartile range (IQR) 64–77; Female sex 3233 (53.4%); median BMI 29.7 IQR 26.5-33.7). HRQoL was measured using the three-level version of the EuroQol 5-Dimensions’ (EQ-5D-3L) Index and EQ-VAS scores. RESULTS. Patients awaiting KA had significantly lower EQ-5D-3L Index scores than the General Population (median 0.620 (IQR 0.16-0.69) vs median 0.796 (IQR 0.69-1.00), p<0.001). By one-year post-operation, the median EQ-5D-3L Index score improved significantly in the KA cohort (mean change 0.32 (Standard deviation 0.33), p<0.001), and demonstrated no significant differences when compared to the General Population (0.796 (IQR 0.69-1.00) vs 0.796 (0.69-1.00), p=1.0). Older age-groups had statistically better Index scores than matched peers in the General Population. Compared to the General Population cohort, the post-operative EQ-VAS was significantly higher in the KA cohort (p<0.001). CONCLUSION. Patients awaiting KA for osteoarthritis have significantly poorer HRQoL than the General Population. However, within one year of surgery, primary KA restored HRQoL to levels expected for patient's age, BMI and sex-matched peers

Introduction. A smartphone-based care platform allows a customizable educational and exercise interface with patients, allowing many to recover after surgery without the need for formal physical therapy (PT). Furthermore, advances in wearable technology to monitor physical activity (PA) provides patients and physicians quantifiable metrics of the patient's recovery. The purpose of this study is to determine the feasibility of a smartphone-based exercise educational platform after primary knee arthroplasty as well as identifying factors that may predict the need for formal physical therapy. Methods. This study is part of a multi-institution, prospective study of patients after primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and partial knee arthroplasty (PKA) enrolled in a smartphone with smartwatch-based episode of care platform that recorded multimodal PA (steps, kcal, stairs). Postoperatively, all patients initially followed the smartphone-based exercise program. At the surgeon's discretion, patients were prescribed therapy if needed. The outcome of this study was the need for PT outside the app-based exercise program as well as time to return to preoperative step count. Variables assessed were preoperative weekly step counts (steps/day), weekly postoperative activity level (weekly step count compared to preoperative level), compliance with the exercise program (>75% completion) and patient demographic data including gender, age, BMI and narcotic use. One hundred eighty-eight patients were included in analysis: 45 PKA (24%) and 143 TKA (76%). Step count data was available on 135 patients and physical therapy data on 174. Results. Overall educational compliance was 91% and exercise compliance 34%. By 4-weeks postop, 45.6% of patients reached or exceeded their preoperative step count, including 60% of PKA and 41% of TKA (p=0.05). There was no significant difference in reaching step count based on gender (p=0.7), BMI <40kg/m2 (p=0.9) or age <65-years old (p=0.67). Sixty-three percent of patients that were compliant with the exercise program reached the step count compared to 40% of patients that weren't complaint (p=0.01). One hundred thirty-three patients (76.4%) completed the app-based exercise program without the need for PT, which included 81.4% of PKA patients and 75% of TKA patients (p=0.38). Weekly compliance with the exercise program (>75%) was significantly associated with not needing PT (p<0.001). Other factors that were significantly associated with the need for PT were a high physical activity level in postoperative week 1 (p<0.001) and a low physical activity level in postoperative week 2 (p=0.002). Conclusion. A high percentage of patients after primary knee arthroplasty were able to successfully complete the smartphone-based exercise program without the need for PT. Compliance with the exercise program was an important predictor of success. Postoperative activity level may also indicate the need for therapy as patients who were very active in the first postoperative week and then saw a decline in activity in the second week were more likely to be prescribed PT. With this platform, surgeons can monitor a patient's exercise compliance and postoperative activity level allowing many to recover at home, while being able to identify those within the first few weeks who may need structured physical therapy. For figures, tables, or references, please contact authors directly

Background. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the early perioperative outcomes after primary knee arthroplasty with the use of a smartphone-based exercise and educational platform compared to a standard of care control group. Methods. A multicenter prospective randomized control trial was conducted evaluating the use of the mymobility smartphone-based care platform for primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and unicondylar knee arthroplasty (UKA). Patients in the control group (224 patients) received the respective institution's standard of care typically with formal physical therapy. Those randomized to mymobility treatment group (192 patients) were provided an Apple Watch and mymobility smartphone application. The treatment group was not initially prescribed physical therapy, but could if their surgeon determined it necessary. Early outcomes assessed included 90-day knee range of motion, KOOS Jr scores, 30-day single leg stance (SLS) time, Time up and Go (TUG) time and need for manipulation under anesthesia (MUA). There was no significant difference in age, BMI or gender between groups. Results. The 90-day knee flexion was not significantly different between controls (118.3±11.8) and mymobility (118.8 ±12) (p=0.7), nor was knee extension (1.6 ±3.5 vs. 1 ±3.1, p=0.16). KOOS Jr scores were not significantly different between control group (74 ±13.1) and mymobility group (71 ±13.3) (p=0.06). 30-day SLS was 22.3 ± 19.5 sec in controls and 24 ± 20.8 sec in mymobility (p=0.2). 30-day TUG times were 16 ± 44.3 sec in control and 15 ± 40.6 sec in mymobility (p=0.84). MUAs were performed in 4.02% of patients in the control group and 2.8% in the mymobility group (p=0.4%). Conclusion. The use of the mymobility care platform demonstrated similar early outcomes to traditional care models, while providing communication and insights into patient engagement with the care plan. There was no significant difference in 90-day range of motion or need for MUA

Introduction. Although we know that smoking damages health, we do not know impact of smoking on a patient's outcome following primary knee arthroplasty (KA). In the UK, clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) have the authority (& funds) to commission healthcare services for their communities. Over the past decade, an increasing number of CCGs are using smoking as a contraindication for patients with end-stage symptomatic knee arthritis being referred to a specialist for due consideration of KA without any clear evidence of the associated risks & benefits. The overall objective of this study is to compare clinical outcomes after knee arthroplasty surgery in smokers, ex-smokers & non-smokers. Methods. We obtained data from the UK Clinical Research Practice Datalink (CPRD) that contains information on over 11 million patients (7% of the UK population) registered at over 600 general practices. CPRD data was linked to Hospital Episode Statistics, hospital admissions & Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) data. We collected data on all KAs (n=64,071) performed over a 21-year period (1995 to 2016). Outcomes assessed included: local & systemic complications (at 6-months post-surgery): infections (wound, respiratory, urinary), heart attack, stroke & transient ischaemic attack, venous thromboembolism, hospital readmissions & GP visits (1-year), analgesic use (1-year), surgical revision (up to 20-years), mortality (90-days and 1-year), & 6-month change from pre-operative scores in Oxford Knee Score (OKS). Regression modelling is used to describe the association of smoking on outcomes, adjusting for confounding factors. Results. Smoking was associated with an increased risk of lower respiratory tract infections (LRTI) (4.2% smokers vs. 2.7% non-smokers) (Odds Ratio (OR) 0.76, p-value 0.017). LRTI were similar in ex-smokers & smokers at 3.9%. There was no association with any of the other 6-month complications. Pain medication use over 1-year post surgery was higher in smokers compared to non-smokers: gabapentinoids 7.4% vs. 5.2% (OR 0.74, p< 0.001), opioids 45.9% vs. 35.3% (OR 0.79, p< 0.001), NSAIDs 51.6% vs. 46.1% (OR 0.91, p = 0.044). Mortality was higher in smokers at 1-year compared to non-smokers (hazard ratio (HR) 0.53, p<0.001) & ex-smokers (HR 0.65, p = 0.037), but there was no difference observed at 90-days. There was no association of smoking on revision surgery over 20-years follow up. Smoking was associated with worse postoperative OKS being 3.1 points higher in non-smokers (p<0.001) & 3.0 points higher in ex-smokers (p<0.001). The overall change in OKS before & after surgery was 13.9 points in smokers versus 16.3 points in non-smokers (p<0.001) & 15.7 points in ex-smokers (p<0.001). Over the year following surgery, smokers were more likely to visit their GP, but there was no association with hospital readmission rates. Conclusion. This is the largest study with linked primary care & secondary care data highlighting impact of a preventable patient factor on outcome of a routinely performed planned intervention. Smokers achieved clinical meaningful improvements in patient reported pain & function (OKS) following KA, although their attained post-operative OKS was lower than in non-smokers & ex-smokers. Levels of pain medication use were notably higher in both smokers & ex-smokers. As smokers achieved good clinical outcomes following KA surgery, smoking should not be a barrier to referral for or consideration of KA. However, the study does highlight particular risks a patient is taking if he/she continues to smoke when being considered for elective knee arthroplasty. This study will help the family physicians as well as patients to make an informed decision on whether to go ahead with a planned intervention whilst patient continues to be an active smoker or not. Key Words: Knee Arthroplasty, Smoking, Patient Reported Outcomes, Epidemiology, Complications

Introduction. The Rapid Recovery Program (RRP) is a holistic perioperative accelerated discharge process that aims to improve efficiency and quality of care, improve patient education, standardise protocols and pathways and encourage early mobilisation & discharge. Aims. To compare length of stay (LOS) of primary knee arthroplasty patients before and after implementation of the RRP. Method. A retrospective cohort study of all patients admitted for knee arthroplasty was performed between 1. st. May 2007 and 28. th. February 2009. Data were obtained from hospital computer records. LOS of 2 groups compared: Pre-RRP implementation (Pre-RRP) and post-RRP implementation (post-RRP) and analysed using Welch's t- and chi square tests with significant at the p<0.05 level. (Definitions: Day of operation = ‘day 0’, first post-operative day = ‘day 1’, discharge = to the patient's own home). Results. 315 patients identified: 147 Pre-RRP (mean age 72 years; range 48-90) and 168 post-RRP (mean age 71 years; range 38-98). Mean LOS was reduced from 8.5 days (range 2-30) Pre-RRP to 5.9 days (range 2-38) post-RRP (p<0.01). Median LOS was reduced from 6 days (Pre-RRP) to 4 days (post-RRP) (p<0.01). Following RRP implementation, more patients were discharged on day 3 (Pre-RRP 9% vs Post RRP 30%; p<0.001) and less patients stayed more than 5 days (Pre-RRP 60% vs Post RRP 34%; p<0.001). Conclusion. The Rapid Recovery Programme significantly reduced LOS for knee arthroplasty patients, by a mean of 2.6 days. Significantly more patients were discharged by day 3 and significantly less stayed longer than 5 days. As well as cost savings, the patient experience was enhanced and the multidisciplinary team moral increased through centralised team work. Further evaluation of patient outcomes such as complication rates and patient satisfaction must be evaluated

We report a ten-year rate of survival of 96% for the cemented Freeman-Samuelson knee arthroplasty in patients from the Swedish Knee Registry and the Royal London Hospital with revision for aseptic loosening as the criterion for failure.

Out of a total of 623 patients who, over a ten-year period, underwent primary total knee replacement (TKR) without patellar resurfacing, 20 underwent secondary resurfacing for chronic anterior knee pain.

They were evaluated pre- and postoperatively using the clinical and radiological American Knee Society score. The mean follow-up was 36.1 months (12 to 104). The mean knee score improved from 46.7 to 62.2 points and the mean functional score from 44.7 to 52.2 points. Only 44.4% of the patients, however, reported some improvement; the remainder reported no change or deterioration. The radiographic alignment of the TKR did not influence the outcome of secondary resurfacing of the patella. Complications were noted in six of the 20 patients including fracture and instability of the patella and loss of movement.

Anterior knee pain after TKR remains difficult to manage. Secondary resurfacing of the patella is not advocated in all patients since it may increase patient dissatisfaction and hasten revision.

Aims. To compare rates of serious adverse events in patients undergoing revision knee arthroplasty with consideration of the indication for revision (urgent versus elective indications), and compare these with primary arthroplasty and re-revision arthroplasty. Methods. Patients undergoing primary knee arthroplasty were identified in the national Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) between 1 April 1997 to 31 March 2017. Subsequent revision and re-revision arthroplasty procedures in the same patients and same knee were identified. The primary outcome was 90-day mortality and a logistic regression model was used to investigate factors associated with 90-day mortality and secondary adverse outcomes, including infection (undergoing surgery), pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, and stroke. Urgent indications for revision arthroplasty were defined as infection or fracture, and all other indications (e.g. loosening, instability, wear) were included in the elective indications cohort. Results. A total of 939,021 primary knee arthroplasty procedures were included (939,021 patients), of which 40,854 underwent subsequent revision arthroplasty, and 9,100 underwent re-revision arthroplasty. Revision surgery for elective indications was associated with a 90-day rate of mortality of 0.44% (135/30,826; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.37 to 0.52) which was comparable to primary knee arthroplasty (0.46%; 4,292/939,021; 95% CI 0.44 to 0.47). Revision arthroplasty for infection was associated with a much higher mortality of 2.04% (184/9037; 95% CI 1.75 to 2.35; odds ratio (OR) 3.54; 95% CI 2.81 to 4.46), as was revision for periprosthetic fracture at 5.25% (52/991; 95% CI 3.94 to 6.82; OR 6.23; 95% CI 4.39 to 8.85). Higher rates of pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, and stroke were also observed in the infection and fracture cohort. Conclusion. Patients undergoing revision arthroplasty for urgent indications (infection or fracture) are at higher risk of mortality and serious adverse events in comparison to primary knee arthroplasty and revision arthroplasty for elective indications. These findings will be important for patient consent and shared decision-making and should inform service design for this patient cohort. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(10):1578–1585

Abstract. Introduction. The objective of this study was to determine rates of serious adverse events in patients undergoing revision knee arthroplasty with consideration of the indication for revision and compare these with primary knee arthroplasty. Methodology. Primary and revision arthroplasty procedures were identified in the national Hospital Episode Statistics and were linked by patient and side. A logistic regression model was used to investigate factors associated with 90-day mortality (primary outcome) and secondary serious adverse outcomes. Urgent indications for revision arthroplasty were defined as infection or fracture; other indications (e.g. loosening, instability, wear) were included in the elective cohort. Results. 939,021 primary knee arthroplasty and 40,584 revision cases were included. Revision surgery for elective indications was associated with a 90-day rate of mortality of 0.44% (95% CI 0.37-0.52) which was comparable to primary knee arthroplasty (0.46%; 95% CI 0.44-0.47). Revision arthroplasty for infection, however, was associated with a much higher mortality of 2.04% (95% CI 1.75-2.35; odds ratio [OR] 3.54; 95% CI 2.81-4.46), as was revision for periprosthetic fracture at 5.25% (95% CI 3.94-6.82; OR 6.23; 95% CI 4.39-8.85). Higher rates of PE, MI, and stroke were observed in the infection and fracture cohort. Conclusion. Patients presenting with infection of a knee arthroplasty or a periprosthetic fracture are at very high risk of adverse events. It is important that acute hospital services and tertiary referral centres caring for these patients are appropriately supported to ensure appropriate urgency with an anticipation for increased care requirements

Aims. The aim of this study was to describe the pattern of revision indications for unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and any change to this pattern for UKA patients over the last 20 years, and to investigate potential associations to changes in surgical practice over time. Methods. All primary knee arthroplasty surgeries performed due to primary osteoarthritis and their revisions reported to the Danish Knee Arthroplasty Register from 1997 to 2017 were included. Complex surgeries were excluded. The data was linked to the National Patient Register and the Civil Registration System for comorbidity, mortality, and emigration status. TKAs were propensity score matched 4:1 to UKAs. Revision risks were compared using competing risk Cox proportional hazard regression with a shared γ frailty component. Results. Aseptic loosening (loosening) was the most common revision indication for both UKA (26.7%) and TKA (29.5%). Pain and disease progression accounted for 54.6% of the remaining UKA revisions. Infections and instability accounted for 56.1% of the remaining TKA revision. The incidence of revision due to loosening or pain decreased over the last decade, being the second and third least common indications in 2017. There was a decrease associated with fixation method for pain (hazard ratio (HR) 0.40; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 0.94) and loosening (HR 0.29; 95% CI 0.10 to 0.81) for cementless compared to cemented, and units UKA usage for pain (HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.91), and loosening (HR 0.51; 95% CI 0.37 to 0.70) for high usage. Conclusion. The overall revision patterns for UKA and TKA for the last 20 years are comparable to previous published patterns. We found large changes to UKA revision patterns in the last decade, and with the current surgical practice, revision due to pain or loosening are significantly less likely. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(12):923–931

Aims. Our unit was identified as a negative outlier in the national patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) programme, which has significant funding implications. As a centre that carries out a high volume of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA), our objectives were: 1) to determine whether the PROMs programme included primary UKA when calculating the gain in Oxford Knee Score (OKS); and 2) to determine the impact of excluding primary UKA on calculated OKS gains for primary knee arthroplasty. Materials and Methods. National PROMs data from England (2012 to 2016) were analyzed. Inclusion of UKA cases in the national PROMs programme was determined using clinical codes. Local OKS gain was calculated for UKA and TKA and compared with the published PROMs results for 2012/13. Results. Use of the recommended codes for primary UKA excluded 99.6% of UKAs locally and 97% nationally from PROMs programme analysis. Inclusion of primary UKAs in PROMs analysis improved our OKS gain from 15.1 (below average) to 16.3 (above average) for 2012/13 for primary knee arthroplasty. Conclusion. Exclusion of UKA patients from the PROMs programme is a nationwide issue that potentially introduces bias when comparing OKS gain between centres. Where commissioning decisions are based on routinely collected data, it is imperative that the underlying methodology is appropriate to generate valid results

Abstract. Introduction. The role of patellar resurfacing in total knee arthroplasty remains controversial. We questioned the effect of patellar resurfacing on the early and late revision rates after total knee arthroplasty. Materials and Methods. We analysed the data of cumulative revisions of primary knee replacement from the NJR 19th Annual Report. NJR included secondary patellar resurfacing as a revision. We compared differences in the 3-year and 15-year revision rates between the patellar resurfacing and non-resurfacing for the different combinations of total knee replacements using a paired t-test. We performed subgroup analysis for the five combinations with the highest volumes. Results. Twenty-seven implant combinations had the 15-year revision rates reported. Patellar resurfacing group had lower mean 3-year revision rate of 1.68 (SD 0.7) compared to 2.02 (SD 0.9) in non-resurfacing group (p=0.05). However, 15-year revision rate was similar between the two groups (mean 5.7, SD 2.1 vs. mean 5.7, SD 2.2; p = 0.46). High volume implants showed that two combinations (NexGen CR and PS) had similar revision rates at 3 and 15 years between resurfacing and non-resurfacing groups. Three combinations (PFC Sigma CR and PS and Genesis 2 CR) had higher revision rate in non-resurfacing group at 3 years (p=0.01) and the difference persisted at 15 years (p=0.05). Conclusions. Although revision rate in total knee arthroplasty was higher without patellar resurfacing at 3 years, at 15 years the difference was not significant. However, the higher revision without patellar resurfacing can be prosthetic combination specific which surgeons need to be aware of

Aims. The purpose is to determine the non-inferiority of a smartphone-based exercise educational care management system after primary knee arthroplasty compared with a traditional in-person physiotherapy rehabilitation model. Methods. A multicentre prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted evaluating the use of a smartphone-based care management system for primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and partial knee arthroplasty (PKA). Patients in the control group (n = 244) received the respective institution’s standard of care with formal physiotherapy. The treatment group (n = 208) were provided a smartwatch and smartphone application. Early outcomes assessed included 90-day knee range of movement, EuroQoL five-dimension five-level score, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacement (KOOS JR) score, 30-day single leg stance (SLS) time, Time up and Go (TUG) time, and need for manipulation under anaesthesia (MUA). Results. Overall, 90-day mean flexion was not significantly different between the control (121° (SD 11.7°)) and treatment groups (121. o. ; p = 0.559); 90-day mean SLS was 22.7 seconds (SD 9.8) in controls and 24.3 seconds (SD 20.8) in treatment (p = 0.519); 90-day mean TUG times were 10.1 seconds (SD 4.8) in control and 9.3 seconds (SD 3.3) in treatment (p = 0.139). Mean KOOS JR scores were significantly different between control group (73.6 (SD 13.4)) and treatment group (70.4 (SD 12.6); p = 0.026). MUAs were performed in nine (3.7%) patients in the control group and four (1.9%) in the treatment group (p = 0.398). Physiotherapy was performed by 230 (94.4%) of control group and 123 (59.3%) of treatment group (p < 0.001). There were no significant differences between groups in postoperative urgent care visits, or readmissions within 90 days, with significantly fewer emergency department visits in the treatment group (16 (8.2%) vs five (2.5%), p = 0.014). Conclusion. The use of the smartwatch/smartphone care platform demonstrated non-inferiority of clinically significant outcomes to traditional care models, while requiring significantly less postoperative physiotherapy and fewer emergency department visits. This platform could aid in decreasing postoperative costs, while improving patient engagement and communication with the healthcare team. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(6 Supple A):3–12

Abstract. Background. Since 2012 we have routinely used the cementless Oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (mUKA), with microplasty instrumentation, in patients with anteromedial osteoarthritis (AMOA) meeting modern indications. We report the 10-year survival of 1000 mUKA with minimum 4-year follow-up. Methods. National Joint Registry (NJR) surgeon reports were interrogated for each senior author to identify the first 1,000 mUKAs performed for osteoarthritis. A minimum of 4 years follow-up was required. There was no loss to follow-up. The NJR status of each knee was established. For each mUKA revision the indication and mechanism of failure was determined using local patient records. The 10-year implant survival was calculated using life-table analysis. Results. The 1,000 mUKA cohort represented 55% of all primary knee replacements in the period, with an average age of 67.7 years and a 54%/46% male/female split. There were 17 revisions (11 for arthritis progression, 4 infections, 1 dislocation and 1 aseptic loosening). The 10-year survival was 98% (44 at risk in 10th year). One patient sustained a periprosthetic fracture at 3 weeks, treated with buttress plate fixation. Discussion. This is the first detailed series reporting the long-term outcome of the cementless Oxford mUKA implanted using microplasty instrumentation. There was a low failure rate, with only one revision for aseptic loosening. Lateral progression was the commonest cause for revision, with an incidence of 1%. This report provides evidence that the combination of evidence-based indications, well-designed instrumentation and cementless fixation can provide excellent long-term survival for the Oxford mUKA in treating AMOA