Whether to resurface the patella during a primary Total Knee Replacement (TKR) performed as a treatment of degenerative osteoarthritis remain a controversial issue. Patellar resurfacing was introduced because early implants were not designed to accommodate the native patella in an anatomic fashion during the range of motion. Complications related to patella resurfacing became a primary concern and have been associated with the variable revision rates often report post TKR. Subsequent modifications in implant design have been made to offer the surgeon option of leaving the patella un-resurfaced. Numerous clinical trials have been done to determine the superiority of each option. Unfortunately, there is little consensus and surgeon preference remains the primary variable. One of the major reasons given to support patella resurfacing is to eliminate Anterior Knee Pain post operatively. However, studies have shown that this problem was not exclusively found in non-resurfaced patients so the author conclude that anterior knee pain is probably related to component design or to the details of the surgical technique, such as component rotation rather that whether or not the patella is resurfaced. An increasing rate of complications with the extensor mechanism after patellar resurfacing led to the concept of selective resurfacing of the patella in TKR. Decision making algorithms with basis of clinical, radiographic and intraoperative parameters have been developed to determine which patients are suitable for patella resurfacing and which are suitable for patella non-resurfacing. Finally, the continued study of this topic with longer follow up term in randomized, controlled, clinical trials remains essential in our understanding of patella in TKR. The development of joint registry will allow surgeons to draw conclusions on the basis of larger numbers of patients and will improve the reporting of the results of patellar non resurfacing in clinical trials. In general, surgeons in United States always resurface while their counterparts in Europe tend to never resurface

Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing enjoyed a period of increased global clinical application beginning in the early to mid-2000's. This tapered off quickly, to the point that it is now a niche surgery. One naturally asks the question, why?. The answers are quite simple: 1) There are no clinical benefits when compared with total hip replacements (THA). While many authors have tried valiantly to demonstrate a benefit clinically to performing a resurfacing over a THA, they have simply been unable to convincingly do so. The procedures produce equivalent clinical results. Many claims, such as allowing a patient greater activity levels and return to sports are clearly heavily biased depending on patient selection. The only credible claim to an advantage over THA that can be made regarding resurfacing implants is indeed there is preservation of host bone of the femoral head and neck. However, this retained bone also reduces the femoral head-to-neck ratio compared to a THA and leads to the potential for bone-on-bone impingement that would not be seen if the neck was resected. Additionally the clinician needs to carefully question the true clinical relevance of this preserved bone. One need only think of all of the isolated acetabular component revisions, or polyethylene liner exchanges, that are performed while retaining solidly ingrown femoral components with good preservation of calcar bone years following the index procedure. 2) Resurfacing implants are much more costly than conventional THA implants. In an era of increased cost constraints, parties are willing to pay more only when there is a proven benefit. Resurfacing implants offer no such benefit. 3) There is a well-documented higher revision rate with resurfacing implants over THA. While the previous claim was that this wasn't seen in younger males, that too has been disproven. The latest data from the Australian Joint Replacement Registry demonstrates the 15-year cumulative percentage revision rates for conventional total hip at 9.7% and resurfacing at 13.3%. 4) There is the significant risk of metal ions and local hypersensitivity secondary to the metal-on-metal bearing. Again, this risk is significantly limited with the use of a THA with a polyethylene insert. 5) There is a significant incidence of femoral neck fractures. 6) The overall femoral component loosening rates are higher than for total hip replacements. 7) There is a clear learning curve with resurfacing implants with most series showing increased complications in the first fifty cases, and depending on a surgeons overall clinical practice, it may be quite a challenge to ever really overcome this learning curve issue. 8) There is difficulty restoring offset and leg length discrepancies in certain cases when trying to utilise a resurfacing implant

Background. Partial humeral head resurfacing using a stemless implant is a bone-conserving option in treatment of focal chondral defects. We report our experience using the Arthrosurface HemiCAP® device. Methods. This is a retrospective study of patients with focal chondral defects of the humeral head, treated with partial resurfacing arthroplasty, with a minimum follow-up of 2 years. Mean patient age was 45.4 years (range 27–76). Patients were analyzed in 2 groups: those who underwent HemiCAP for an isolated humeral head defect, and those who had HemiCAP combined with biologic resurfacing of concomitant glenoid disease. Results. 39 patients met inclusion criteria, 5 of whom had concomitant biologic glenoid resurfacing. 24 of 34 shoulders (70.6%) with HemiCAP alone demonstrated functional improvement and decreased pain. Mean forward flexion showed some improvement from 131 degrees pre-operatively to 158 degrees post-operatively (p=0.004). Mean Subjective Shoulder Value improved from 35.0% to 83.6% (p< 0.001). ASES score improved from 29.8 to 77.7(p< 0.001). However, follow-up radiographs showed progression of glenoid disease in 20.6%(7 shoulders). 5 shoulders(14.7%) failed and were revised: 3 to total shoulder arthroplasty, 1 to hemiarthroplasty, and 1 patient underwent glenohumeral fusion. 5 (14.7%) had some pain at latest follow-up but were pursuing a course of conservative management. In the group with associated biologic glenoid resurfacing, all 5 patients had ongoing pain and progression of glenohumeral arthritis requiring revision or glenohumeral fusion. Conclusion. While 70% of patients with an isolated humeral head chondral defect had significant improvement in pain and function after HemiCAP, the outcomes were not superior to those published for complete humeral head resurfacing, or for stemmed prostheses. HemiCAP was not successful for patients with concomitant glenoid disease. Results for these patients were inferior to those published for total shoulder arthroplasty, and ultimately all were revised to a stemmed prosthesis or fused

It's easy to say that hip resurfacing is a failed technology. Journals and lay press are replete with negative reports concerning metal-on-metal bearing failures, destructive pseudotumors, withdrawals and recalls. Reviews of national joint registries show revision risks with hip resurfacing exceeding those of traditional total hip replacement, and metal bearings fare worst among all bearing couples. Yet, that misses the point. Modern hip resurfacing was never meant to replace total hip replacement (THR). It was intended to preserve bone in young patients who would be expected to need multiple revisions due to their youth and high-demand activities. The stated goal of the developers of the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) was to delay THR by 10 years. In the two decades that followed the release of BHR, this goal has been met and exceeded. Much has been learned about indications, patient selection, and surgical technique. We now know that this highly specialised, challenging procedure is best indicated in the young, active male with osteoarthritis, as a complementary, not competitive procedure, to THR. Resurfacing has many advantages. First and foremost, it saves bone, on the day of surgery, and over the next several years by preventing stress shielding. Dislocations are very rare. Leg length discrepancy and changes in offset are avoided. Post-operative activity, including heavy manual labor and contact sports, is unrestricted. More normal loading of the femur and joint stability has allowed professional athletes to regain their careers. Femoral side revisions, if necessary, are simple total hips, and dual mobility constructs allow one to keep the socket. Adverse reactions to metal debris (ARMD), including pseudotumors, have generated great concern. Initially described only in women, it was unclear whether the etiology was allergy, toxicity, or inflammation. A better understanding of the wear properties of the bearing, and its relation to size, anteversion, hip dysplasia and metallurgy, along with retrieval analysis, allow us to conclude that it is excessive wear due to edge loading which is the fundamental mechanism for the vast majority of ARMD. Thus, patient selection, implant selection and surgical technique, the orthopaedic triad, are paramount. What has been most impressive are the truly exceptional results in young, active men. The worst candidates for THR turn out to be the best candidates for resurfacing. The ability to return to full, unrestricted activity is just as important to these patients as the spectacular survivorship in centers specializing in resurfacing. If they are unlucky and face a revision, they are not facing the life-changing outcomes of a long revision femoral stem. So if the best indication for hip resurfacing is the young, active male, let's look at the results of resurfacing these patients in centers with high volumes, using devices with a good track record, such as BHR. Several centers around the world report 10–18 year success rates of BHR in males under 50 at 98–100%. Return to athletics is routinely achieved, and even professional athletes have regained their careers. Hip resurfacing doesn't have to be better than THR to be popular among patients. Just the idea of saving all that bone makes it attractive. In the young active male, however, the results exceed those of THR, while leaving better revision options for the future. This justifies its continued use in this challenging patient population

Introduction. Reported advantages of unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) over total knee replacement (TKR) include better kinematics and less postoperative pain. The reported longevity of UKRs, regardless of design, still does not compare as favourably as that of TKR. Resurfacing-type UKR differ to other UKR in that they result in minimal bone resection. Objectives. The aim of this study was to review our experience with conversion of a resurfacing UKR prosthesis to a TKR. We sought to determine the causes of failure and compare outcomes in terms of functional scores, range of motion and radiographic measures. We also determined the use of graft and prosthetic revision supplements as well as stemmed implants. Methods. We retrospectively reviewed the records of 55 patients (Group A), all consecutive, who underwent TKR for a failed UKR from 2003–2008. We chose a cohort of 55 patients (Group B) who had undergone a primary TKR from the same surgeon's database that most closely resembled the study cohort in terms of sex, age and BMI. Results. The most common mode of failure was base-plate subsidence and progression of disease to other compartments. 55% of patients did not have isolated disease at the time of the initial surgery. Interestingly, 42% who had revision due to progression of disease had mult-icompartmental disease at initial UKR but 19 of 24 patients (79%) who had multi-compartmental disease were revised for other reasons other than progression of disease. 3 (5%) of patients required either tibial and/or femoral augments and/or stems. Conclusions. Only 5% required complex revision surgery. Thus, a large proportion of conversions of resurfacing UKR to TKR require non-complex surgery with patients having no significant differences in their radiographic measures nor in their clinical measures to those of primary knee replacements

Introduction. Following in-depth analysis of the market leading brand combinations in which we identified implant influences on risk of revision, we compared revision in patients implanted with different categories of hip replacement in order to find implant with the lowest revision risk, once known flawed options were removed. Methods. All patients with osteoarthritis who underwent a hip replacement (2003–2010) using an Exeter-Contemporary (cemented), Corail-Pinnacle (cementless), Exeter-Trident (Hybrid) or a Birmingham Hip resurfacing (BHR) were initially included within the analysis. Operations involving factors that were significant predictors of revision were excluded. Cox proportional hazard models were then used to assess the relative risk of revision for a category of implant (compared with cemented), after adjustment for patient covariates. Results. In males, overall 5-year revision was 1.4%. Implant category did not significantly influence revision risk (p=0.615) in < 60 after adjustment. In the 60–75 year group, resurfacing implants were a significant influence for revision (Hazard ratio (HR)=2.63, p< 0.001), and with a trend in cementless (HR=1.63, p=0.057). In males >75 years, cementless implants significantly influenced revision risk (HR=3.48, p=0.002). In females, overall 5-year revision was 1.0%. After adjustment, in < 60 group implant category did not significantly influence revision (p=0.199), although there was a trend towards higher revision in resurfacing implants (HR=3.53, p=0.065). In over 60 year olds, cementless implants were a significant influence for revision risk (60–75 years: HR=1.80, p=0.010, >75 years: HR=2.26, p=0.010. In the older group, there was also a trend towards higher revision with hybrid implants (HR=3.25, p=0.053). Discussion. In summary, after implant optimisation of the market leaders and patient risk adjustment we found that cementless implants had a higher revision compared with cemented in males over 75 and females over 60 years old. In males under 60 years, there were no significant differences in revision risk between implant types

Strategy regarding patella resurfacing in total knee replacement (TKR) remains controversial. TKR revision rates are reportedly influenced by surgeon procedure volume. The study aim was to compare revision outcomes of TKR with and without patella resurfacing in different surgeon volume groups using data from the AOANJRR. The study population included 571,149 primary TKRs for osteoarthritis. Surgeons were classified as low, medium, or high-volume based on the quartiles of mean primary TKR volume between 2011 and 2020. Cumulative percent revision (CPR) using Kaplan-Meier estimates of survivorship were calculated for the three surgeon volume groups with and without patella resurfacing. Cox proportional hazards models, adjusted for age and sex, were used to compare revision risks. High-volume surgeons who did not resurface the patella had the highest all-cause CPR (20-year CPR 10.9%, 95% CI [10.0%, 12.0%]). When the patella was resurfaced, high-volume surgeons had the lowest revision rate (7.3%, 95% CI [6.4%, 8.4%]). When the high-volume groups were compared there was a higher rate of revision for the non-resurfaced group after 6 months. When the medium-volume surgeon groups were compared, not resurfacing the patella also was associated with a higher rate of revision after 3 months. The low-volume comparisons showed an initial higher rate of revision with patella resurfacing, but there was no difference after 3 months. When only patella revisions were considered, there were higher rates of revision in all three volume groups where the patella was not resurfaced. TKR performed by high and medium-volume surgeons without patella resurfacing had higher revision rates compared to when the patella was resurfaced. Resurfacing the patella in the primary procedure protected against revision for patella reasons in all surgeon volume groups. Level of evidence: III (National registry analysis)

Joint registries suggest a downward trend in the use of uncemented Total Knee Replacements (TKR) since 2003, largely related to reports of early failures of uncemented tibial and patella components. Advancements in uncemented design such as trabecular metal may improve outcomes, but there is a scarcity of high-quality data from randomised trials. 319 patients <75 years of age were randomised to either cemented or uncemented TKR implanted using computer navigation. Patellae were resurfaced in all patients. Patient outcome scores, re-operations and radiographic analysis of radiolucent lines were compared. Two year follow up was available for 287 patients (144 cemented vs 143 uncemented). There was no difference in operative time between groups, 73.7 v 71.1 mins (p= 0.08). There were no statistical differences in outcome scores at 2 years, Oxford knee score 42.5 vs 41.8 (p=0.35), International Knee Society 84.6 vs 84.0 (p=0.76), Forgotten Joint Score 66.7 vs 66.4 (p=0.91). There were two revisions, both for infection one in each group (0.33%). 13 cemented and 8 uncemented knees underwent re-operation, the majority of these being manipulation under anaesthetic (85.7%), with no difference (8.3% vs 5.3%, 95% CI -2.81% to 8.89%, p = 0.31). No difference was found in radiographic analysis at 2 years, 1 lucent line was seen in the cemented group and 3 in the uncemented group (0.67% v 2.09%, 95%CI -4.1% to 1.24%, p = 0.29). We found no difference in clinical or radiographic outcomes between cemented and uncemented TKR including routine patella resurfacing at two years. Early results suggest there is no difference between cemented and uncemented TKR at 2 years with reference to survivorship, patient outcomes and radiological parameters

Background. The decision to resurface the patella during total knee arthroplasty remains controversial. Aim of our study was to evaluate the functional difference between patients undergoing medial rotation knee (MRK) replacement with and without patellar resurfacing at our hospital. Methods. We did a retrospective analysis of patients undergoing MRK total knee replacement (Matortho) at our hospital between 2008 and 2017 performed by 2 surgeons. Patients were recalled for a clinical review from Oct 2017 for recording of Oxford knee, Baldini and Ferrel scores. Mann-Whitney U test was used for non-parametric data (SPSS v24). Results. Of the 104(49 males) patients, 62 had patellar resurfacing. Age and sex distribution was similar in both groups. The mean follow up period was 74.45 months in non- resurfaced group and 54.93 months in resurfaced group. The Median (Range) pre-operative Oxford knee scores were similar in both groups − 15(4–42) in non-resurfaced group and 14(1–44) in resurfaced group. The median OKS at follow-up were 36(12–47) in non-resurfaced group and 37(9–48) in resurfaced group. The Patellar scores were slightly better in the resurfaced group – Baldini score median (range) (90 (25–100) in non resurfaced v/s 100(30–100) in resurfaced), Ferrel score (median (range) 25(12–30) in non-resurfaced v/s 28(10–30) in resurfaced, p 0.042). The patellofemoral component of the OKS (Q5 + Q7 + Q12) median (range) showed an improvement from 3(1–11) to 6.5 (3–11) in non-resurfaced group and from 3(0–12) to 8 (2–12) (p 0.039) in resurfaced group. Conclusion. Although the overall functional knee scores in non-resurfaced and resurfaced groups were same, we found a statistically significant difference in Ferrel score and in the patellofemoral component of OKS between the 2 groups of MRK knee replacement suggesting specific benefits of patellar resurfacing

Deep infection is a devastating complication of total knee arthroplasty (TKA). This study aimed to determine if there was a relationship between surgeon volume and the incidence of revision for infection after primary TKA. Data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) from 1 September 1999 to 31 December 2020 for primary TKA for osteoarthritis that were revised for infection. Surgeon volume was defined by the number of primary TKA procedures performed by the surgeon in the year the primary TKA was performed and grouped as <25, 25-49, 50-74, 75-99, >100 primary TKA procedures per year. Kaplan Meir estimates for cumulative percent revision (CPR) and Cox Proportional Hazard Ratios were performed to compare rates of revision for infection by surgeon volume, with sub-analyses for patella and polyethylene use, age <65 years and male gender. 5295 of 602,919 primary TKA for osteoarthritis were revised for infection. High volume surgeons (>100 TKA/year) had a significantly lower rate of revision for infection with a CPR at 1 and 17 years of 0.4% (95% CI 0.3, 0.4) and 1.5% (95% CI 1.2, 2.0), respectively, compared with 0.6% (95% CI 0.5, 0.7) and 2.1% (95% CI 1.8, 2.3), respectively, for low volume surgeons (<25 TKR/year). Differences between the high-volume group and the remaining groups remained when sub-analysis for age, gender, ASA, BMI, patella resurfacing and the use of cross-linked polyethylene (XLPE). High volume surgeons have lower rates of revision for infection in primary TKA

Obesity is a known risk factor for hip osteoarthritis. The aim of this study was to compare the incidence of obesity in Australians undergoing hip replacements (HR) for osteoarthritis to the general population. A cohort study was conducted comparing data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) from 2017-18. Body mass index (BMI) data for patients undergoing primary total hip replacement and resurfacing for osteoarthritis were obtained from the AOANJRR. The distribution of HR patients by BMI category was compared to the general population, in age and sex sub-groups. During the study period, 32,495 primary HR were performed for osteoarthritis in Australia. Compared to the general population, there was a higher incidence of Class I, II, and III obesity in patients undergoing HR in both sexes aged 35 to 74 years old. Class III obese females and males undergoing HR were on average 6 to 7 years younger than their normal weight counterparts. Class III obese females and males aged 55-64 years old were 2.9 and 1.7 times more likely to undergo HR, respectively (p<0.001). There is a strong association between increased BMI and relative risk of undergoing HR. Similar findings have been noted in the United States of America, Canada, United Kingdom, Sweden and Spain. A New Zealand Registry study and recent meta-analysis have also found a concerning trend of Class III obese patients undergoing HR at a younger age. Obese Australians are at increased risk of undergoing HR at a younger age. A national approach to address the prevalence of obesity is needed

The aim of this retrospective cohort study was to investigate the reasons for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) revisions at a tertiary hospital over a four-year period. The study aimed to identify the primary causes of TKA revisions and shed light on the implications for patient care and outcomes. The study included 31 patients who underwent revisions after primary knee arthroplasty between January 2017 and December 2020. A retrospective approach was employed, utilizing medical records and radiological findings to identify the reasons for TKA revisions. The study excluded oncology patients to focus on non-oncologic indications for revision surgeries. Patient demographics, including age and gender, were recorded. Data analysis involved categorizing the reasons for revision based on clinical assessments and radiological evidence. Among the 31 patients included in the study, 9 were males and 22 were females. The age of the patients ranged from 43 to 81, with a median age of 65 and an interquartile range of 18.5. The primary reasons for TKA revisions were identified as aseptic loosening (10 cases) and prosthetic joint infection (PJI) (13 cases). Additional reasons included revision from surgitech hemicap (1 case), patella osteoarthritis (1 case), stiffness (2 cases), patella maltracking (2 cases), periprosthetic fracture (1 case), and patella resurfacing (1 case). The findings of this retrospective cohort study highlight aseptic loosening and PJI as the leading causes of TKA revisions in the examined patient population. These results emphasize the importance of optimizing surgical techniques, implant selection, and infection control measures to reduce the incidence of TKA revisions. Future research efforts should focus on preventive strategies to enhance patient outcomes and mitigate the need for revision surgeries in TKA procedures

This study aimed to analyze the effect of two different techniques of cement application: cement on bone surface (CoB) versus cement on bone surface and implant surface (CoBaI) on the short-term effect of radiolucent lines (RLL) in primary fully cemented total knee arthroplasties (TKA) with patella resurfacing. 379 fully cemented TKAs (318 patients) were included in this monocentric study. Preoperative and postoperative at week 4 and 12 month after surgery all patients had a clinical and radiological examination and were administered the Oxford Knee Score (OKS). Cement was applied in two different ways among the two study groups: cement on bone surface (CoB group) or cement on bone surface and implant surface (CoBaI group). The evaluation of the presence of RLL or osteolysis was done as previously described using the updated Knee Society Radiographic Evaluation System. The mean OKS and range of motion improved significantly in both groups at the 4-week and 12-month follow-up, with no significant difference between the groups (CoB vs. CoBaI). RLL were present in 4.7% in the whole study population and were significantly higher in the CoBaI group (10.5%) at the 4-week follow-up. At the 12-month follow-up RLL were seen in 29.8% of the TKAs in the CoBaI group, whereas the incidence was lower in the CoB group (24.0% (n.s.)). There were two revisions in each group. None of these due to aseptic loosening. Our study indicated that the application of bone cement on bone surface only might be more beneficial than onto the bone surface and onto the implant surface as well in respect to the short-term presence of RLL in fully cemented primary TKA. The long-term results will be of interest, especially in respect to aseptic loosening and might guide future directions of bone cement applications in TKA

Hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) is a bone conserving alternative to total hip arthroplasty. We present the early 1 and 2-year clinical and radiographical follow-up of a novel ceramic-on-ceramic (CoC) HRA in a multi-centric Australian cohort. Patient undergoing HRA between September 2018 and April 2021 were prospectively included. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMS) in the form of the Forgotten Joint Score (FJS), HOOS Jr, WOMAC, Oxford Hip Score (OHS) and UCLA Activity Score were collected preoperatively and at 1- and 2-years post-operation. Serial radiographs were assessed for migration, component alignment, evidence of osteolysis/loosening and heterotopic ossification formation. 209 patients were identified of which 106 reached 2-year follow-up. Of these, 187 completed PROMS at 1 year and 90 at 2 years. There was significant improvement in HOOS (p< 0.001) and OHS (p< 0.001) between the pre-operative, 1-year and 2-years outcomes. Patients also reported improved pain (p<0.001), function (p<0.001) and reduced stiffness (p<0.001) as measured by the WOMAC score. Patients had improved activity scores on the UCLA Active Score (p<0.001) with 53% reporting return to impact activity at 2 years. FJS at 1 and 2-years were not significantly different (p=0.38). There was no migration, osteolysis or loosening of any of the implants. The mean acetabular cup inclination angle was 41.3° and the femoral component shaft angle was 137°. No fractures were reported over the 2-year follow-up with only 1 patient reporting a sciatic nerve palsy. There was early return to impact activities in more than half our patients at 2 years with no early clinical or radiological complications related to the implant. Longer term follow-up with increased patient numbers are required to restore surgeon confidence in HRA and expand the use of this novel product. In conclusion, CoC resurfacing at 2-years post-operation demonstrate promising results with satisfactory outcomes in all recorded PROMS

Abstract. Background. To determine the long-term survival outcomes of Copeland Resurfacing Hemiarthroplasty (CRHA) performed by a single surgeon series. Methods. A retrospective cohort study which looked at patients who underwent CRHA over 6 years. Re-operations including revisions with component exchange taking place in our hospital and at local centres were reviewed. Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS) was used to assess their functional outcomes pre- and post-CRHA. Results. 80 CRHAs were performed in 72 patients between 2007 and 2013 with a mean follow-up of 6.5 years. The mean follow-up was 79 months (50–122). The primary indication for CRHA was osteoarthritis (76.3%), cuff tear arthropathy (16.3%), rheumatoid arthritis (5%) and post-trauma (1.3%). The mean pre-operative OSS was 16, which doubled following CRHA surgery. Fifteen patients underwent revision surgery due to ongoing glenoid pain with a mean revision time following primary CRHA being 49 months. Projected survival at the endpoints 5,7 and 10 years were 83, 81 and 79% respectively. Conclusion. This study provides us with a much longer average follow-up period in comparison to many other studies published. Previous studies, support resurfacing as a useful implant in reducing pain and improving function in the short-term; but this series demonstrates over the medium-term a relatively high revision rate of about 20% in comparison with other arthroplasty options, despite the revision rate seeming to plateau from the 5-year mark onwards

A concern of metal on metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty is long term exposure to Cobalt (Co) and Chromium (CR) wear debris from the bearing. This study compares whole blood metal ion levels from patients drawn at one-year following Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) to levels taken at a minimum 10-year follow-up. A retrospective chart review was conducted to identify all patients who underwent a BHR for osteoarthritis with a minimum 10-year follow-up. Whole blood metal ion levels were drawn at final follow-up in June 2019. These results were compared to values from patients with one-year metal ion levels. Of the 211 patients who received a BHR, 71 patients (54 males and 17 females) had long term metal ion levels assessed (mean follow-up 12.7 +/− 1.4 years). The mean Co and Cr levels for patients with unilateral BHRs (43 males and 13 females) were 3.12 ± 6.31 ug/L and 2.62 ± 2.69 ug/L, respectively, and 2.78 ± 1.02 ug/L and 1.83 ± 0.65 ug/L for patients with bilateral BHRs (11 males and 4 females). Thirty-five patients (27 male and 8 female) had metal-ion levels tested at one-year postoperatively. The mean changes in Co and Cr levels were 2.29 ug/l (p = 0.0919) and 0.57 (p = 0.1612), respectively, at one year compared to long-term. These changes were not statistically significant. This study reveals that whole blood metal ion levels do not change significantly when comparing one-year and ten-year Co and Cr levels. These ion levels appear to reach a steady state at one year. Our results also suggest that regular metal-ion testing as per current Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) guidelines may be impractical for asymptomatic patients. Metal-ion levels, in and of themselves, may in fact possess little utility in determining the risk of failure and should be paired with radiographic and clinical findings to determine the need for revision

OBJECTIVES. The use of a mobile bearing has been suggested to decrease the rate of patellar complications after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). However, to resurface or retain the native patella remains debated. Few long-term results have been documented. The present retrospective study was designed to evaluate the long-term (more than 10 years) results of mobile bearing TKAs on a national scale, and to compare pain results and survivorship according to the status of the patella. The primary hypothesis of this study was that the 10 year survival rate of mobile bearing TKAs with patella resurfacing will be different from that of mobile bearing TKAs with native patella retaining. METHODS. All patients operated on between 2001 and 2004 in all participating centers for implantation of a TKA (whatever design used) were eligible for this study. Usual demographic and peri-operative items have been recorded. All patients were contacted after the 10 year follow-up for repeat clinical examination (Knee Society score (KSS), Oxford knee questionnaire). Patients who did not return were interviewed by phone call. For patients lost of follow-up, family or general practitioner was contacted to obtain relevant information about prosthesis survival. TKAs with resurfaced patella and TKAs with retained native patella were paired according to age, gender, body mass index and severity of the coronal deformation (with steps of 5°). Pain score, KSS and Oxford knee score were compared between two groups with a Student t-test at a 0.05 level of significance. Survival curve was plotted according to the actuarial technique, using the revision for mechanical reason as end-point. The influence of the patella status was assessed with a logrank test at a 0.05 level of significance. RESULTS. 1,604 TKAs were implanted during the study time-frame. 849 cases could be paired according to age, gender, BMI and severity of the pre-operative coronal deformation (2/1 ratio) into two groups: resurfaced patella (496 cases) and retained patella (243 cases). There was no difference in any baseline criteria between both groups. 150 patients deceased before the 10 year follow up (18%). Final follow-up was obtained for 489 cases (58%). 31 reoperations (prosthesis exchange or patellofemoral revision) were performed during the study time frame (4%), with 17 reoperations for mechanical reasons (3%). KSS and Oxford knee score were significantly higher for TKAs without patella resurfacing, there was a significant difference between the 13 year survival rates of TKAs with resurfaced patella (97%) and TKAs with retained native patella (93%). CONCLUSIONS. The primary hypothesis was confirmed: 10 year survival rate of mobile bearing TKAs with patella resurfacing was better than mobile bearing TKAs with native patella retaining. Patella resurfacing may lead to a better survival after mobile bearing TKA. However, the clinical results were better after patella resurfacing when the index TKA was not revised

It is a not so uncommon clinical scenario: well-fixed, well-aligned, balanced total knee arthroplasty with continued pain. However, radiographs also demonstrate an unresurfaced patella. The debate continues and the controversy remains as whether or not to routinely resurface the patella in total knee arthroplasty. In perhaps the most widely referenced article on the topic, the overall revision rates were no different between the resurfaced (9%) and the unresurfaced (12%) groups and thus their conclusion was that similar results can be obtained with and without resurfacing. However, a deeper look in to the data in this study shows that 4 times more knees in the unresurfaced group were revised for patellofemoral problems. A more recent study concluded that selectively not resurfacing the patella provided similar results when compared to routinely resurfacing. The study does emphasise however, that this conclusion depends greatly on femoral component design and operative diagnoses. This suggests that selective resurfacing with a so-called “patella friendly” femoral component in cases of tibio-femoral osteoarthritis, is a safe and effective strategy. Finally, registry data would support routine resurfacing with a 2.3 times higher relative risk of revision seen in the unresurfaced TKA. Regardless of which side of the debate one lies, the not so uncommon clinical scenario remains; what do we do with the painful TKA with an unresurfaced patella. Precise and accurate diagnosis of the etiology of a painful TKA can be very difficult, and there is likely a strong bias towards early revision with secondary patellar resurfacing in the painful TKA with an unresurfaced TKA. At first glance, secondary resurfacing is associated with relatively poor outcomes. Correia, et al. reported that only half the patients underwent revision TKA with secondary resurfacing had resolution of their complaints. Similarly, only 53% of patients in another series were satisfied with the procedure and pain relief. The conclusions that can be drawn from these studies and others are that either routine patellar resurfacing should be performed in all TKA or, perhaps more importantly, we need to better understand the etiology of pain in an otherwise well-aligned, well-balanced, well-fixed TKA. It is this author's contingency that the presence of an unresurfaced patella leads surgeons to reoperate earlier, without truly identifying the etiology of pain or dissatisfaction. This strong bias; basically there is something more that can be done, therefore we should do it, is the same bias that leads to early revision of partial knee arthroplasty. While very difficult, we as knee surgeons should not revise a partial knee or secondarily resurface a patella due to pain or dissatisfaction. Doing so, unfortunately, only works about half the time. The diagnostic algorithm for evaluating the painful, uresurfaced TKA includes routinely ruling out infection with serum markers and an aspiration. Pre-arthroplasty radiographs should be obtained to confirm suitability and severity of disease for an arthroplasty. An intra-articular diagnostic injection with Marcaine +/− corticosteroid should provide significant pain relief. MARS MRI may be beneficial to evaluate edema within the patella. Lastly, operative implant stickers to confirm implant manufacturer and type are critical as some implants perform less favorably with unresurfaced patellae. To date, no studies of secondary resurfacing describe the results of this, or similar, algorithms for defining patellofemoral problems in the unresurfaced TKA and therefore it is still difficult to conclude that poor results are not simply due to our inherent bias towards early revision and secondary resurfacing of the unresurfaced patella

Aims. The aim of this study was to assess the incidence the microbiological spectrum and clinical outcome of hip and knee revision arthroplasties with unexpected-positive-intraoperative-cultures (UPIC) at a single center with minimum follow up of 2 years. Methods. We retrospectively analyzed our prospectively maintained institutional arthroplasty registry. Between 2011 and 2020 we performed presumably aseptic rTHA (n=939) and rTKA (n= 1,058). Clinical outcome, re-revision rates and causes as well as the microbiological spectrum were evaluated. Results. In total, 219/939 (23.3%) rTHA and 114/ 1,058 (10.8%) rTKA had a UPIC (p<0.001). Single positive intraoperative cultures were found in 173/219 (78.9%) in rTHA and 99/114 (86.8%) in rTKA, whereas 46/219 (21.0%) rTHA and 15/114 (13.2%) rTKA had positive results in ≥2 intraoperative cultures. A total of 390 microorganisms were found among the 333 cases. Staphylococcus epidermidis 30.9%, CoNS (21.9%), Cutibacterium acnes 21.1%, and Bacillus spp. 7.3% were the most common microorganisms. Overall, detected microorganisms showed high sensitivity to daptomycin (96.6%), vancomycin (97.3%) and linezolid (98.0%). After a minimum follow up of 2 years (rTHA 1,470 (735; 3,738) days; rTKA 1,474 (749; 4,055) days). During the 2-year follow-up, 8 patients died and 5 were lost to follow-up. There were 54/219 (24.7%) re-revision in rTHa and 20/114 (17.5%) in rTKA. Overall, there were 23 (10.5%) septic re-rTHA and 9 (7.9%) septic re-rTKA as well as 31 (14.2%) aseptic re-rTHA and 11 (9.6%) aseptic re-rTKA. Patients with previous septic revisions bevor UPIC procedure showed a significant higher risk for septic re-revision (p<0.05). Moreover, there were less septic re-revisions after single culture positive UPIC (rTHA: 16/173 (9.2%); rTKA 6/99 (6.1%)) compared to ≥2 positive intraoperative cultures UPIC (rTHA: 7/46 (15.2%); rTKA 3/15 (20.0%)). The most common reason for re-revision in the rTHA-group was aseptic loosening of the cup (34.2%) or of the stem (23.3%), dislocation (18.3%) and periprosthetic-fractures (7.8%). In the rTKA-group it was aseptic loosening (40.4%), instability (24.6%) and secondary patella resurfacing (7.9%). There was a higher septic re-revision rate in consecutive revisions than in planned revisions 17.3% vs. 8.5% in the rTHA-group and 14.3% vs. 7.5% in the rTKA-group, p<0.001. Conclusion. UPICs are common in rTJA. The rate was higher in hips which may partly explained by the easier pre op joint aspiration in the knee. UPIC may lead to an increase in subsequent re-revisions

Introduction. Advantages of ceramic materials for hip joint prosthesis are recognized to be high hardness, scratch resistance, improved wettability, lower friction and lower wear than CoCr surfaces. Recent studies suggest the use of ceramic femoral head reduce fretting corrosion at stem taper junction compared to metal-on-metal taper junction[1]. Continuous improvement of ceramic materials for orthopedic lead to the development of a resurfacing ceramic-on-ceramic hip joint prosthesis. The main differences of resurfacing heads respect to standard heads are their anatomical dimension and the empty shape suitable to cover the femoral bone and to connect with the resurfacing stem. Ceramic is essentially a brittle material and its strength is influenced by the minimum thickness in the stressed area. Ceramic resurfacing head minimum thickness is comparable with ceramic revision head already on the market. The aim of this study is to develop a mechanical pre-clinical analysis verification process for the newly developed system. Materials and methods. The empty shape of the ceramic resurfacing head may influence its strength in a crush loading scenario. Although this is not a physiological condition this test represents the most severe loading for a resurfacing head. Also comparative analysis can be done considering the yield point of conventional metal resurfacing heads reported by the FDA Center for Devices and Radiological Health. For this reason a static unsupported head strength test is performed by applying a compressive load perpendicular to the head axis along the equatorial plane[2](Fig.1). Resurfacing ceramic head made in ZTA is suitable both for a resurfacing stem and an adaptor to be coupled with a standard stem. Mechanical test was performed on worst case resurfacing head size both with resurfacing stem and standard stem based and on FE non linear analysis performed in ANSYS 17.2 according the following material properties: ZTA ceramic (modulus of elasticity E, Poisson ratio ν and density ρ of 348GPa, 0.23 and 4.25g/cm. 3. respectively), and Ti6Al4V (E=114GPa, ν=0.33 and ρ=4.43g/cm. 3. ). For comparison purposes unsupported test was performed on standard head Ø28#S both in Biolox®Delta and Biolox®Forte ceramic. At least three components were used for each test and the average values was compared with predicates[2]. Static compressive load was applied with MTS hydraulic actuators with load cell of 100kN. Results. FE analysis indicated the larger resurfacing head as the worst case size in the size range(Fig.2). Static unsupported head strength test was performed on resurfacing ceramic head Ø57 coupled both with resurfacing stem and standard stem, Biolox®Delta head Ø28#S, Biolox®Forte head Ø28#S and respectively reached a strength value of 53±7kN, 90±3kN, 78±27kN, 49±1kN. Equivalent test were reported in literature for DeltaSurf® Ø58 and BHR. TM. , and respectively reached a strength of 26kN and 5.6kN. Discussion and Conclusion. LIMA ceramic resurfacing head and Biolox Forte Ø28#S showed equivalent unsupported head burst strength. LIMA ceramic resurfacing head showed higher unsupported head burst strength respect to DeltaSurf® and BHR. TM. highlighting its potential in clinical use. For any figures or tables, please contact the authors directly