Stiffness is reported in up to 16% of patients after total knee replacement (TKR)1. Treatment of stiffness after TKR remains a challenge. Manipulation under anaesthesia (MUA) accounts for between 6%-36% of readmissions following TKR2,3. The outcomes of MUA remain variable/unpredictable. Post-operative CPM is used as an adjuvant to MUA, potentially offering improved ROM, however, remains the subject of debate. We report a retrospective study comparing MUA with and without post-operative CPM. In our institution patients undergoing MUA to receive CPM post-operatively. Owing to the COVID-19 pandemic hospital admissions were limited. During this period MUA procedures were undertaken without CPM. Two cohorts were included: 1) MUA + post-operative CPM 2) Daycase MUA. Patients’ demographics, pre-manipulation ROM, post-MUA ROM, and ROM at final follow-up were recorded. Between 2017-2022 126 patients underwent MUA and were admitted for CPM and 42 had daycase MUA. The median Age was 66.5 and 64% were female. 57% had extension deficit (>5o), 70% had flexion deficit (< 90o), and 37% had both. The mean Pre-operative ROM was 72.3o(SD:18.3o) vs. 68.5o(19.0o), ROM at MUA was 95.5o(SD:20.7o) vs 108.3o(SD:14.1o) [p< 0.01], and at final follow-up 87.4o(SD:21.9o) vs. 92.1o(SD:18.2o) for daycase and CPM groups respectively. At final follow-up for the daycase and CPM groups respectively 10% vs. 7% improved, 29% vs. 13% maintained, and 57% vs. 79% regressed from the ROM achieved at MUA. The mean percentage of ROM gained at MUA maintained at final follow-up was 92%(SD:17) and 85%(SD:14)[p=0.03] for daycase and CPM groups respectively. There was no significant difference in ROM achieved at final follow-up despite the significantly greater improvement in ROM achieved at MUA for the CPM group. The CPM group lost a greater ROM after MUA (15% vs. 8%). We conclude that post-operative CPM does not improve ROM achieved after MUA.
Stiffness is reported in 4%–16% of patients after having undergone total knee replacement (TKR). Limitation to range of motion (ROM) can limit a patient's ability to undertake activities of daily living with a knee flexion of 83o, 93o, and 106o required to walk up stairs, sit on a chair, and tie one's shoelaces respectively. The treatment of stiffness after TKR remains a challenge. Many treatment options are described for treating the stiff TKR. In addition to physiotherapy the most employed of these is manipulation under anaesthesia (MUA). MUA accounts for up to 36% of readmissions following TKR. Though frequently undertaken the outcomes of MUA remain variable and unpredictable. CPM as an adjuvant therapy to MUA remains the subject of debate. Combining the use of CPM after MUA in theory adds the potential benefits of CPM to those of MUA potentially offering greater improvements in ROM. This paper reports a retrospective study comparing patients who underwent MUA with and without post-operative CPM. Standard practice in our institution is for patients undergoing MUA for stiff TKR to receive CPM for between 12–24hours post-operatively. Owing to the COVID-19 pandemic hospital admissions were limited. During this period several MUA procedures were undertaken without subsequent inpatient CPM. We retrospectively identified two cohorts of patients treated for stiff TKR: group 1) MUA + post-operative CPM 2) Daycase MUA. All patients had undergone initial physiotherapy to try and improve their ROM prior to proceeding to MUA. In addition to patients’ demographics pre-manipulation ROM, post-MUA ROM, and ROM at final follow-up were recorded for each patient.Abstract
Objectives
Methods
Obesity is prevalent with nearly one third of the world's population being classified as obese. Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is an effective treatment option for high BMI patients achieving similar outcomes to non-obese patients. However, increased rates of aseptic loosening in patients with a high BMI have been reported. In patients with high BMI/body mass there is an increase in strain placed on the implant fixation interfaces. As such component fixation is a potential concern when performing TKA in the obese patient. To address this concern the use of extended tibial stems in cemented implants or cementless fixation have been advocated. Extend tibial stems are thought to improve implant stability reducing the micromotion between interfaces and consequently the risk of aseptic loosening. Cementless implants, once biologic fixation is achieved, effectively integrate into bone eliminating an interface. This retrospective study compared the use of extended tibial stems and cementless implants to conventional cemented implants in high BMI patients. From a prospectively maintained database of 3239 primary Attune TKA (Depuy, Warsaw, Indiana), obese patients (body mass index (BMI) >30 kg/m²) were retrospectively reviewed. Two groups of patients 1) using a tibial stem extension [n=162] and 2) cementless fixation [n=163] were compared to 3) a control group (n=1426) with a standard tibial stem cemented implant. All operations were performed by or under the direct supervision of specialist arthroplasty surgeons. Analysis compared the groups with respect to class I, II, and III (BMI >30kg/m², >35 kg/m², >40 kg/m²) obesity. The primary outcome measures were all-cause revision, revision for aseptic loosening, and revision for tibial loosening. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and Cox regression models were used to compare the primary outcomes between groups. Where radiographic images at greater than 3 months post-operatively were available, radiographs were examined to compare the presence of peri-implant radiolucent lines.Abstract
Objectives
Methods
Up to 20% of patients can remain dissatisfied following TKR. A proportion of TKRs will need early revision with aseptic loosening the most common. The ATTUNE TKR was introduced in 2011 as successor to its predicate design The PFC Sigma (DePuy Synthes, Warsaw, In). However, following reports of early failures of the tibial component there have been ongoing concerns of increased loosening rates with the ATTUNE TKR. In 2017 a redesigned tibial baseplate (S+) was introduced, which included cement pockets and an increased surface roughness to improve cement bonding. Given the concerns of early tibial loosening with the ATTUNE knee system, this study aimed to compare revision rates and those specific to aseptic loosening of the ATTUNE implant in comparison to an established predicate as well as other implant designs used in a high-volume arthroplasty centre. The Attune TKR was introduced to our unit in December 2011. Prior to this we routinely used a predicate design with an excellent long-term track record (PFC Sigma) which remains in use. In addition, other designs were available and used as per surgeon preference. Using a prospectively maintained database, we identified 10,202 patients who underwent primary cemented TKR at our institution between 01/04/2003–31/03/2022 with a minimum of 1 year follow-up (Mean 8.4years, range 1–20years): 1) 2406 with ATTUNE TKR (of which 557 were S+) 2) 4652 with PFC TKR 3) 3154 with other cemented designs. All implants were cemented using high viscosity cement. The primary outcome measures were all-cause revision, revision for aseptic loosening, and revision for tibial loosening. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and Cox regression models were used to compare the primary outcomes between groups. Matched cohorts were selected from the ATTUNE subsets (original and S+) and PFC groups using the nearest neighbor method for radiographic analysis. Radiographs were assessed to compare the presence of radiolucent lines in the Attune S+, standard Attune, and PFC implants.Abstract
Objective
Methods
Total hip replacement (THR) is one of the most successful and cost-effective interventions in orthopaedic surgery. Dislocation is a debilitating complication of THR and managing an unstable THR constitutes a significant clinical challenge. Stability in THR is multifactorial and is influenced by surgical, patient and implant related factors. It is established that larger diameter femoral heads have a wider impingement-free range of movement and an increase in jump distance, both of which are relevant in reducing the risk of dislocation. However, they can generate higher frictional torque which has led to concerns related to increased wear and loosening. Furthermore, the potential for taper corrosion or trunnionosis is also a potential concern with larger femoral heads, particularly those made from cobalt-chrome. These concerns have meant there is hesitancy among surgeons to use larger sized heads. This study presents the comparison of clinical outcomes for different head sizes (28mm, 32mm and 36mm) in primary THR for 10,104 hips in a single centre. A retrospective study of all consecutive patients who underwent primary THR at our institution between 1st April 2003 and 31st Dec 2019 was undertaken. Institutional approval for this study was obtained. Demographic and surgical data were collected. The primary outcome measures were all-cause revision, revision for dislocation, and all-cause revision excluding dislocation. Continuous descriptive statistics used means, median values, ranges, and 95% confidence intervals where appropriate. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were used to estimate time to revision. Cox proportional hazard regression analysis was used to compare revision rates between the femoral head size groups. Adjustments were made for age at surgery, gender, primary diagnosis, ASA score, articulation type, and fixation method.Abstract
Objectives
Methods
