Abstract. Introduction. Total knee replacement (TKR) aims to reduce pain and functional limitations. Despite a good outcome for many, 15–20% patients report chronic pain three months after TKR. The STAR Care Pathway is a clinically important and cost effective treatment to improve pain outcomes over 1 year for people with chronic pain at 3 months after total knee replacement surgery. The care pathway is delivered by specially trained Extended Scope Practitioners (ESPs). There is a gap between research findings and translation into practice. This work shows how the STAR trial findings were implemented into NHS practice at a single centre and the further work required to enable national implementation. Methodology. Trial findings were presented to NHS managers with a business case for an implementation pilot. Trial documentation was adapted for use in usual care using the COM-B model for behaviour change and evidence-based approaches to increase the return of postal questionnaires. Trial sites were contacted to understand their capacity to implement the intervention locally. Results. The STAR care pathway was successfully implemented into NHS practice with a screening response rate of 83%. It is now permanently part of usual care at North Bristol NHS Trust. Trial centres indicated that lack of availability of STAR trained ESPs as a barrier to implementation. The trial manual and training session were adapted for online delivery in partnership with Health Education England. Conclusion. The STAR care pathway has been successfully embedded into NHS care. A toolkit and online clinician training package enables national implementation

Abstract. Introduction. There is little published literature to support the claim that a successful total knee replacement (TKR) is predictive of future good outcomes on the contralateral side. The objective was to identify whether outcome from the first of staged TKRs could be used to predict the outcome of the contralateral TKR. Methodology. This was a retrospective cohort study of 1687 patients over a 25-year period undergoing staged bilateral TKRs in a UK arthroplasty centre. A control group of 1687 patients undergoing unilateral TKR with matched characteristics was identified. Primary outcomes: satisfaction and Knee Society Score (KSS) at one year. Results. Preoperative status was comparable for pain, ROM and KSS (mean 41, 45, 43±14). At one year, dissatisfaction was similar for all groups (4% first of staged TKR, 4% second of staged TKR, 5% controls). If the first TKR had a good outcome, the relative risk of a contralateral bad outcome was 20% less than controls (95% CI 0.6–1.2). If the first TKR had a poor outcome, the risk of a second poor outcome was 4 times higher (95% CI 2.8–6.1), increasing from 6% to 28% (absolute risk). Conclusion. Patients undergoing the second of staged TKRs with a previous good outcome are likely to do well in their second procedure (94 in 100 will go on to have a second good outcome). Of those with a previous poor outcome, 28 in 100 will have a second poor outcome. The trend was persistent despite correcting for gender, age, BMI, and diagnosis

Abstract. INTRODUCTION. 10% of patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA) have disease confined to the patellofemoral joint (PFJ). The main surgical options are total knee replacement (TKR) and PFJ replacement (PFJR). PFJR has advantages over TKR, including being less invasive, bone preserving, allowing faster recovery and better function and more ‘straight forward’ revision surgery. We aim to compare the clinical results of revised PFJR with primary TKR taking into consideration the survival length of the PFJR. METHODOLOGY. Twenty-five patients (21 female) were retrospectively identified from our arthroplasty database who had undergone revision from PFJR to TKR (2006–2019). These patients were then matched with regards to their age at their primary procedure, sex and total arthroplasty life (primary PFJ survival + Revision PFJ time to follow up) up to point of follow-up with a group of primary TKRs implanted at the same point as the primary PFJR. RESULTS. Mean survival of the PFJs revised were 4.2 years. In the PFJR revision group (mean arthroplasty life 7.8 years) mean Oxford knee score (OKS) at latest follow up was 27.8. In the primary knee group (mean arthroplasty life 7.5 years) mean OKS was 32.4. This difference was not statistically significant. All PFJR revisions were performed using primary prostheses. CONCLUSION. PFJR provides comparable clinical outcome even after revision surgery to TKR as primary TKRs at midterm follow up and should be considered in all patients meeting the selection criteria. Given comparable proms and straight forward revisions, staged arthroplasty to preserve bone-stock is a reasonable choice

Abstract. INTRODUCTION. This study aimed to examine how physical activity and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) evolved over the first year after total knee replacement (TKR) for patients with and without post-operative chronic knee pain. METHODS. 83 adults participating in the PEP-TALK, a RCT testing the effectiveness of a behaviour change physiotherapy intervention versus usual rehabilitation post-primary TKR, were analysed. UCLA Activity Score and EQ-5D-5L values for participants with and without chronic knee pain (14 points or lower in the Oxford Knee Score Pain Subscale at six months post-TKR) were compared at six and 12 months post-TKR. We evaluated recovery trajectory those with or without chronic pain at these time points. RESULTS. Participants with chronic knee pain, UCLA Activity Score remained unchanged between baseline to six months (mean: 3.8 to 3.8), decreasing at 12 months (mean: 3.0). Those without post-operative chronic knee pain reported a improvement in physical activity from baseline to six months (mean: 4.0 vs 4.9), plateauing at 12 months (mean: 4.9). Participants with chronic knee pain reported lower baseline HRQoL, although both groups improved mean health utility over one year. Of participants who were not defined as being in chronic pain at six months, 8.5% returned to a chronic pain categorisation by 12 months. CONCLUSION. People with chronic knee pain post-TKR report poorer physical activity and HRQoL scores post-operatively. Monitoring outcomes longer than six months may be indicated as those without chronic knee pain initially post-TKR remain at risk of reverting to chronic knee pain 12 months post-TKR

Abstract. Introduction. The optimal alignment technique for total knee replacement (TKR) remains controversial. We previously reported six-month and two-year results of a randomized controlled trial comparing kinematically (KA) versus mechanically (MA) aligned TKR. In the present study, we report 12-year results from this trial. Methods. The original cohort included 88 TKRs (44 KA using Shape Match patient-specific guides and 44 MA using conventional instrumentation), performed from 2008 to 2009. After IRB approval, the health record of the original 88 patients were queried. Revisions, re-operations, and complications were recorded. The non-deceased patients were contacted via phone. Reoperation and complications were documented via the patient's history. Further, a battery of patient-reported outcome measures (including patient satisfaction, WOMAC, Oxford, KOOS Jr, Forgotten Joint Score, and M-SANE) were obtained. Results. Of the original 88 patients in the study, 15 patients had a least one reoperation (17%). Patella problems were the most common cause of reoperation accounting for 5/8 reoperations in the KA group versus 3/7 in the MA group. There was no statistically significant difference between the two alignment methods in terms of major and minor complications or reoperations. At the 12-year follow-up, 26 patients died leaving 62 patients for follow-up. Of these, 48 patients (77%) were successfully contacted. The kinematically aligned total knees self-reported better satisfaction (96% versus 82%), but no difference in other patient-reported outcome measures compared to mechanically aligned TKRs. Conclusion. KA TKR demonstrates excellent mid to long-term results compared to MA TKR with similar reoperations, complications, and patient-reported outcome measures

Abstract. Introduction. Total knee replacement (TKR) is a successful operation for many patients, however 15–20% of patients experience chronic post-surgical pain (CPSP). Many will experience neuropathic characteristics. We describe the prevalence and patterns of neuropathic pain in a cohort of patients with CPSP three months after TKR. Methodology. Between 2016–2019, 363 patients with troublesome pain, ≤14 on Oxford Knee score pain subscale, at three months after TKR from eight NHS hospitals were recruited into the Support and Treatment After Replacement (STAR) trial. Self-reported neuropathic pain was assessed at three, nine and fifteen months after surgery using painDETECT and Douleur Neuropathique 4 (DN4). Results. At three months post-operative, 53% reported neuropathic pain on painDETECT and 74% on DN4. Half (56%) remained in neuropathic pain over the twelve-month follow-up period, 26% reported improvement, and 9% reported new neuropathic symtpoms or fluctuated in and out of neuropathic pain (9%). Overall mean neuropathic pain scores improved between three and 15 months after TKR. When the painDETECT cut-off score of ≥13(ambiguous/possible) was used, DN4 and painDETECT measures showed similar prevalence rates at each timepoint. Conclusion. Neuropathic pain is common among patients with CPSP at three months after TKR. Although symptoms improved over time, one quarter to one half of our cohort continued to report symptoms at fifteen months. We propose a painDETECT cutoff score of ≥13 be used to identify neuropathic features in the TKR population. Postoperative care should include identification, assessment, and treatment of neuropathic pain in patients with CPSP after TKR

Abstract. Introduction. Total knee replacement (TKR) in patients with skeletal dysplasia is technically challenging surgery due to deformity, joint contracture, and associated co-morbidities. The aim of this study is to follow up patients with skeletal dysplasia following a TKR. Methodology. We retrospectively reviewed 22 patients with skeletal dysplasia who underwent 31 TKRs at our institution between 2006 and 2022. Clinical notes, operative records and radiographic data were reviewed. Results. Achondroplasia was the most common skeletal dysplasia (8), followed by Chondrodysplasia punctata (7) and Spondyloepiphyseal dysplasia (5). There were fourteen men and eight women with mean age of 51 years (28 to 73). The average height of patients was 1.4 metres (1.16–1.75) and the mean weight was 64.8 Kg (34.3–100). The mean follow up duration was 68.32 months (1–161). Three patients died during follow up. Custom implants were required in twelve patients (38.71%). Custom jigs were utilised in six patients and two patients underwent robotic assisted surgery. Hinged TKR was used in seventeen patients (54.84%), posterior stabilised TKR in nine patients (29.03%), and cruciate retaining TKR in five patients (16.13%). One patient underwent a patella resurfacing for persistent anterior knee pain and another had an intra-operative medial tibial plateau fracture which was managed with fixation. No revisions occurred during the follow up period. Conclusion. Despite the technical challenges and complexity of TKR within this unique patient group, we demonstrate good implant survivorship during the study period. Cross sectional imaging is recommended preoperatively for precise planning and templating

Abstract. Introduction. Approximately 15–20% of patients report chronic pain three months after total knee replacement (TKR). The STAR care pathway is a clinically important and cost-effective personalised intervention for patients with pain 3 months after TKR. The pathway comprises screening, assesment, onward referral for treatment and follow-up over one year. In a multicentre randomised controlled trial comparing the pathway with usual care, the pathway improved pain at 6 and 12 months. This study examined the longer-term clinical and cost-effectiveness of the STAR care pathway. Methodology. STAR trial participants were followed-up at a median of 4 years post-randomisation. Co-primary outcomes were self-reported pain severity and interference in the replaced knee, assessed with the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI). Resource use from electronic hospital records was valued with UK reference costs. Results. Of the 337 participants active at trial completion, 326 had confirmed vital status, and 226 (69%) provided outcome data at a median of 4 years. The between-group difference in mean BPI severity score was −0.42 (95% CI −1.07, 0.23; p=0.20) and for BPI interference was −0.64 (95% CI −1.41, 0.12; p=0.10), favouring the intervention. Multiple imputation analyses led to attenuations of about 0.2 points. Mean hospital admission costs over four years were £2461.49 (95% CI £1354.42, £3568.57) in the intervention arm and £3791.68 (95% CI £2095.12, to £5488.24) in usual care. Conclusion. These data are consistent with sustained benefits from the STAR care pathway at 4 years, albeit attenuated and with wider confidence intervals, in part attributable to attrition after 1 year

Abstract. Introduction. The rate of day-case total knee replacement (TKR) in the UK is currently ~0.5%. Reducing length of stay improves efficiency, increases operative throughput and tackles the rising demand for joint replacement surgery and the COVID-19 related backlog. We report safe delivery of day-case TKR in an NHS Trust via inpatient wards, with no additional resources. Methodology. Day-case TKRs, defined as patients discharged on the same calendar day as surgery, were retrospectively reviewed with a minimum follow-up of six-months. Analysis of hospital and primary care records was performed to determine readmission and reattendance rates. Telephone interviews were conducted to determine patient satisfaction. Results. Between 2016 and 2021, 301/7350 (4.1%) TKRs were discharged on the day of surgery. Mean follow-up was 31.4 (6.2–70.0) months. 28 (9.3%) patients attended Accident and Emergency or other acute care settings within 90-days of surgery; six (2.0%) patients were readmitted. No patients underwent a subsequent revision procedure. There were no prosthetic infections. Two patients underwent secondary patella resurfacing, and one patient underwent arthroscopic arthrolysis after previous manipulation under anaesthetic (MUA). Three patients underwent MUA alone. Primary care consultation records, available for 206 patients, showed 16 (7.8%) patients contacted their General Practitioner within two-weeks post-operatively; two (1.0%) were referred to secondary care. 115/121 (95%) patients telephoned stated they would have day-case TKR again. Conclusion. Day-case TKR can be safely delivered in the NHS with no additional resources. We found low incidence of contact with primary and secondary care in the post-operative period, and high patient satisfaction

Abstract. Aims. Whilst short and mid-term activity levels after a Total Knee Replacement (TKR) have been reported in the literature; there is an over simplification of the reporting and longer-term activity levels are unknown. The aim of this study was to map the long-term trajectories of patients’ physical activity levels postoperatively to identify meaningful subgroups and explore associations with preoperative variables. Methods. This was a secondary analysis of a single centre longitudinal cohortstudy using group-based trajectory modelling (GBTM) of the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) physical activity score over ten years. Multinomial logistic regression models (both adjusted and unadjusted) were used to test associations between preoperative variables and trajectory group membership. Results. 266 of the 904 eligible patients were recruited (29%). Data from 260 patients was available for analysis. Four trajectory groups were identified with good fit of the model (average posterior probability 0.79 to 0.93). Of the four groups, the two more active groups had a peak activity level between two-three years postoperatively; the less active groups had a peak activity level at between three months and one year. Preoperative UCLA, participation in sports in the three years prior to surgery and male gender showed trends towards association with a higher activity group. Conclusions. Four trajectory groups were identified giving a more detailed understanding of temporal trends in physical activity levels post TKR. There was weak evidence to show an association between patient expectation, preoperative UCLA score and participation in sports in the prior three years and group membership

Abstract. Background. Around 5–15% of patients will experience chronic postoperative pain after total knee replacement (TKR) surgery but the source of the pain is unknown. The aim of this study was to assesses patients six months after TKR using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the knee, pain sensory profiles and assessments of pain catastrophizing thoughts. Methods. Forty-six patients had complete postoperative data and were included. MRI findings were scored according to the MRI Osteoarthritis Knee Score (MOAKS) recommendation for Hoffa synovitis, effusion size and bone marrow lesions. Pain sensory profiles included the assessment of pressure pain thresholds (PPTs), temporal summation of pain (TSP) and conditioned pain modulation (CPM). Pain catastrophizing was assessed using the pain catastrophizing scale (PCS). Clinical pain was evaluated using a visual analog scale (VAS, 0–10cm) and groups of moderate-to-severe (VAS>3) and non-to-mild postoperative pain (VAS≤3) were identified. Results. Patients with moderate-to-severe postoperative pain demonstrated higher grades of Hoffa synovitis (P<0.001) and effusion size (P<0.001), lower PPTs (P=0.039), higher TSP (P=0.001) and lower CPM (P=0.014) when compared to patients with non-to-mild postoperative pain. No differences were found in PCS scores. Linear regression models found TSP (P=0.013), PCS (P<0.001), Hoffa synovitis (P=0.036) and effusion size (P=0.003) as independent parameters contributing to the postoperative pain severity. Conclusion. These finding indicate that chronic postoperative after TKR is a combination of joint-related synovitis and effusion in combination with sensitization of central pain mechanisms and pain catastrophizing thoughts

Abstract. Introduction. Knee arthrodesis is one of the treatment options for limb salvage of a failed total knee replacement (TKR) when further revisions were contraindicated. The aim of this study is to determine patient outcomes after knee arthrodesis (KA) following a failed TKR. Methodology. A literature search was conducted for studies published from January 2000 through January 2022 via Medline, Web of Science, Embase and Cochrane databases. Only primary research studies were included with independent extraction of articles by two reviewers. Results were synthesised by narrative review according to PRISMA guidelines, with full tabulation of all included study results. Results. A total of 34 studies with 1,034 patients were included in the review; all were longitudinal observational studies, and none were conducted as randomised controlled trials. Reporting methods were very inconsistent in the included studies, and this heterogeneity led to pooled data totals that varied widely in different categories. The mean follow-up was 3.5 years. Overall, 72.0% (167 of 232) of patients used a walking stick and 12.5% (36 of 287) remained non-ambulatory after KA. Only 7.7% (58 of 752) of patients subsequently underwent above-knee amputation. Conclusion. KA is a potential limb salvage procedure after revision arthroplasties have been attempted in cases of failed TKR. Most patients were able to ambulate both at home and in the community, although with an increased rate of using a walking stick after the operation. However, in the absence of randomised controlled trials, these data may allow for a more accurate counselling and decision making

Aims. Debate remains whether the patella should be resurfaced during total knee replacement (TKR). For non-resurfaced TKRs, we estimated what the revision rate would have been if the patella had been resurfaced, and examined the risk of re-revision following secondary patellar resurfacing. Methods. A retrospective observational study of the National Joint Registry (NJR) was performed. All primary TKRs for osteoarthritis alone performed between 1 April 2003 and 31 December 2016 were eligible (n = 842,072). Patellar resurfacing during TKR was performed in 36% (n = 305,844). The primary outcome was all-cause revision surgery. Secondary outcomes were the number of excess all-cause revisions associated with using TKRs without (versus with) patellar resurfacing, and the risk of re-revision after secondary patellar resurfacing. Results. The cumulative risk of all-cause revision at ten years was higher (p < 0.001) in primary TKRs without patellar resurfacing (3.54% (95% confidence interval (CI) 3.47 to 3.62)) compared to those with resurfacing (3.00% (95% CI 2.91 to 3.11)). Using flexible parametric survival modelling, we estimated one ‘excess’ revision per 189 cases performed where the patella was not resurfaced by ten years (equivalent to 2,842 excess revisions in our cohort). The risk of all-cause re-revision following secondary patellar resurfacing was 4.6 times higher than the risk of revision after primary TKR with patellar resurfacing (at five years from secondary patellar resurfacing, 8.8% vs 1.9%). Conclusion. Performing TKR without patellar resurfacing was associated with an increased risk of revision. Secondary patellar resurfacing led to a high risk of re-revision. This represents a potential substantial healthcare burden that should be considered when forming treatment guidelines and commissioning services. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(5):864–871

Introduction. Hip and knee replacements are being performed at increasing rates and currently account for one of the largest procedure expenditures in the Medicare budget. Outcomes of total knee replacement (TKR) depend on surgeon, patient and implant factors. The impact that the specific implants might have on patient-reported outcomes is unknown. The primary purpose of this study was to evaluate the patient-reported functional outcomes and satisfaction after primary total knee arthroplasty in patients with osteoarthritis who underwent TKR using five different brands of posterior-stabilized implants. Specifically, the aim was to evaluate for any difference in patient-reported outcomes based on implant brand used. The hypothesis was that there would be no difference in functional outcome that could be attributed to the implant used in primary TKR. Methods. Using our institution's total joint arthroplasty registry, we identified 4,135 patients who underwent total knee replacement (TKR) using one of the five most common implant brands used at our institution. These included Biomet Vanguard (N=211 patients), Depuy/Johnson&Johnson Sigma (N=221), Exactech OptetrakLogic (N=1,507), Smith & Nephew Genesis II (N=1,414), and Zimmer NexGen (N=779). Only posterior-stabilized primary TKRs in patients with osteoarthritis were included. Patients were evaluated preoperatively using the Knee Osteoarthritis Outcomes Score (KOOS), Lower Extremity Activity Scale (LEAS), and Short Form-12 (SF-12). Demographics including age, body mass index (BMI), Charleston Comorbidity Index (CCI), ASA physical status classification, sex, and smoking status were collected. Postoperatively, 2-year KOOS, LEAS, SF-12, and satisfaction scores were compared between implant groups. Results. At 2-year follow-up, patient-reported outcome scores were available for a total of 4,069 patients. In multiple regression analysis which separately compared each implant group to the aggregate of all others, after accounting for age, BMI, CCI, ASA status, and sex, there were no clinically significant differences in KOOS score changes from baseline to 2-year follow-up between any of the implants. In 2-year satisfaction, >80% of patients in each implant group were satisfied in all domains measured. In the multivariate regression model, patients in the NexGen group had the highest likelihood of being satisfied (OR 1.63, p=0.006) and OptetrakLogic patients had the lowest likelihood of being satisfied (OR 0.60, P<0.001) although these differences were below the minimal clinically important thresholds. Conclusion. TKR provides patient satisfaction and improvement in function regardless of implant type. While some implant systems had higher outcome scores than others, these differences were all below clinically significant thresholds. Whether these differences are a function of surgeon expertise or implant design is unknown. Future research should focus on identifying specific design elements that contribute to improved patient outcomes. Healthcare administrators may find the similarities in clinical outcomes to be a useful consideration when negotiating implant purchasing contracts

Total knee replacement (TKR) is an effective method of treating end-stage arthritis of the knee. It is not, however, a procedure without risk due to a number of factors, one of which is diabetes mellitus. The purpose of this study was to estimate the general prevalence of diabetes in patients about to undergo primary TKR and to determine whether diabetes mellitus adversely affects the outcome. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis according to the Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines. The Odds Ratio (OR) and mean difference (MD) were used to represent the estimate of risk of a specific outcome. Our results showed the prevalence of diabetes mellitus among patients undergoing TKR was 12.2%. Patients with diabetes mellitus had an increased risk of deep infection (OR = 1.61, 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.38 to 1.88), deep vein thrombosis (in Asia, OR = 2.57, 95% CI, 1.58 to 4.20), periprosthetic fracture (OR = 1.89, 95% CI, 1.04 to 3.45), aseptic loosening (OR = 9.36, 95% CI, 4.63 to 18.90), and a poorer Knee Society function subscore (MD = -5.86, 95% CI, -10.27 to -1.46). Surgeons should advise patients specifically about these increased risks when obtaining informed consent and be meticulous about their peri-operative care. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:1637–43

Introduction. The application of artificial intelligence (A.I) using patient reported outcomes (PROs) to predict benefits, risks, benefits and likelihood of improvement following surgery presents a new frontier in shared decision-making. The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of an A.I-enabled decision aid versus patient education alone on decision quality in patients with knee OA considering total knee replacement (TKR). Secondarily we assess impact on shared decision-making, patient satisfaction, functional outcomes, consultation time, TKR rates and treatment concordance. Methods. We performed a randomized controlled trial involving 130 new adult patients with OA-related knee pain. Patients were randomized to receive the decision aid (intervention group, n=65) or educational material only (control group, n=65) along with usual care. Both cohorts completed patient surveys including PROs at baseline and between 6–12 weeks following initial evaluation or TKR. Statistical analysis included linear mixed effect models, Mann-Whitney U tests to assess for differences between groups and Fisher's exact test to evaluate variations in surgical rates and treatment concordance. Results. The intervention group showed greater decision quality (K-DQI, Mean difference = 20%, p<0.0001), collaboration in decision-making (CollaboRATE, 12% (intervention group), 47% (control group) below median, p<0.0001), satisfaction with consultations (NRS-C, 14% (intervention group), 33% (control group) below median, p=0.008), improvement in functional outcomes from baseline up to 12 week follow-up (KOOSJR, 4.9 pts higher (intervention group), p=0.029) without significantly impacting consultation time. No differences were observed in TKR rates or treatment concordance. Conclusion. A.I-enabled decision aids incorporating PROs in predictive algorithms can improve decision quality, level of shared decision-making, satisfaction with patient-provider consultations, and functional outcomes, without extending consultation times. The combination of advanced predictive technologies and patient reported data to forecast surgical outcomes presents a paradigm shift in shared decision making and the delivery of high value care for patients with knee OA

Pre-operative variables are increasingly being used to determine eligibility for total knee replacement (TKR). This study was undertaken to evaluate the relationships, interactions and predictive capacity of variables available pre- and post-operatively on patient satisfaction following TKR. Using nationally collected patient reported outcome measures and data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales, we identified 22 798 patients who underwent TKR for osteoarthritis between August 2008 and September 2010. The ability of specific covariates to predict satisfaction was assessed using ordinal logistic regression and structural equational modelling. Only 4959 (22%) of 22 278 patients rated the results of their TKR as ‘excellent’, despite the majority (71%, n = 15 882) perceiving their knee symptoms to be much improved. The strongest predictors of satisfaction were post-operative variables. Satisfaction was significantly and positively related to the perception of symptom improvement (operative success) and the post-operative EuroQol-5D score. While also significant within the models pre-operative variables were less important and had a minimal influence upon post-operative satisfaction. The most robust predictions of satisfaction occurred only when both pre- and post-operative variables were considered together. These findings question the appropriateness of restricting access to care based on arbitrary pre-operative thresholds as these factors have little bearing on post-operative satisfaction. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:1359–65

Between 1989 and 1992 we had 102 knees suitable for unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR). They were randomised to receive either a St Georg Sled UKR or a Kinematic modular total knee replacement (TKR). The early results demonstrated that the UKR group had less complications and more rapid rehabilitation than the TKR group. At five years there were an equal number of failures in the two groups but the UKR group had more excellent results and a greater range of movement. The cases were reviewed by a research nurse at 8, 10 and 12 years after operation. We report the outcome at 15 years follow-up. A total of 43 patients (45 knees) died with their prosthetic knees intact. Throughout the review period the Bristol knee scores of the UKR group have been better and at 15 years 15 (71.4%) of the surviving UKRs and 10 (52.6%) of the surviving TKRs had achieved an excellent score. The 15 years survivorship rate based on revision or failure for any reason was 24 (89.8%) for UKR and 19 (78.7%) for TKR. During the 15 years of the review four UKRs and six TKRs failed. The better early results with UKR are maintained at 15 years with no greater failure rate. The median Bristol knee score of the UKR group was 91.1 at five years and 92 at 15 years, suggesting little functional deterioration in either the prosthesis or the remainder of the joint. These results justify the increased use of UKR

Total knee replacement (TKR) smart tibial trials have load-bearing sensors which will show quantitative compartment pressure values and femoral-tibial tracking patterns. Without smart trials, surgeons rely on feel and visual estimation of imbalance to determine if the knee is optimally balanced. Corrective soft-tissue releases are performed with minimal feedback as to what and how much should be released. The smart tibial trials demonstrate graphically where and how much imbalance is present, so that incremental releases can be performed. The smart tibial trials now also incorporate accelerometers which demonstrate the axial alignment. This now allows the surgeon the option to perform a slight recut of the tibia or femur to provide soft-tissue balance without performing soft-tissue releases. Using a smart tibial trial to assist with soft-tissue releases or bone re-cuts, improved patient outcomes have been demonstrated at one year in a multicentre study of 135 patients (135 knees). Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B(11 Suppl A):78–83

Total knee replacement (TKR) is one of the most common operations in orthopaedic surgery worldwide. Despite its scientific reputation as mainly successful, only 81% to 89% of patients are satisfied with the final result. Our understanding of this discordance between patient and surgeon satisfaction is limited. In our experience, focus on five major factors can improve patient satisfaction rates: correct patient selection, setting of appropriate expectations, avoiding preventable complications, knowledge of the finer points of the operation, and the use of both pre- and post-operative pathways. Awareness of the existence, as well as the identification of predictors of patient–surgeon discordance should potentially help with enhancing patient outcomes. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B, Supple A:120–3