A key outcome measured by national joint registries are revision events. This informs best practice and identifies poor-performing surgical devices. Although registry data often record reasons for revision arthroplasty, interpretation is limited by lack of standardised definitions of revision reasons and objective assessment of radiologic and laboratory parameters. Our study aim was to compare reasons for unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) revision reported to the New Zealand Joint Registry (NZJR) with reasons identified by independent clinical review. A total of 2,272 patients undergoing primary medial and lateral UKA at four large tertiary hospitals between 2000 and 2017 were included. A total of 158 patients underwent subsequent revision with mean follow-up of 8 years. A systematic review of clinical findings, radiographs and operative data was performed to identify revision cases and to determine the reasons for revision using a standardised protocol. These were compared to reasons reported to the NZJR using Chi-squared and Fisher exact tests.Introduction
Methods
Recent technological advancements have led to the introduction of robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty to improve the accuracy and precision of bony resections and implant position. However, the in vivo accuracy is not widely reported. The primary objective of this study is to determine the accuracy and precision of a cut block positioning robotic arm. Seventy-seven patients underwent total knee arthroplasty with various workflows and alignment targets by three arthroplasty-trained surgeons with previous experience using the ROSA® Knee System. Accuracy and precision were determined by measuring the difference between various workflow time points, including the final pre-operative plan, validated resection angle, and post-operative radiographs. The mean difference between the measurements determined accuracy, and the standard deviation represented precision.Introduction
Method
Contemporary indications for unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) include bone on bone radiographic changes in the medial compartment with relatively preserved lateral and patellofemoral compartments. The role of MRI in identifying candidates for UKR is commonplace. The aim of this study was to assess the relationship between radiographic and MRI pre-operative grade and outcome following UKR. A retrospective analysis of medial UKR patients from 2017 to 2021. Inclusion criteria were medial UKR for osteoarthritis with pre-operative and post-operative Oxford Knee Scores (OKS), pre-operative radiographs and MRI. 89 patients were included. Whilst all patients had grade 4 ICRS scores on MRI, 36/89 patients had grade 3 KL radiographic scores in the medial compartment, 50/89 had grade 4 KL scores on the medial compartment. Grade 3 KL with grade 4 IRCS medial compartment patients had a mean OKS change of 17.22 (Sd 9.190) meanwhile Grade 4 KL had a mean change of 17.54 (SD 9.001), with no statistical difference in the OKS change score following UKR between these two groups (p=0.873). Medial bone oedema was present in all but one patient. Whilst lateral compartment MRI ICRS scores ranged from 1 to 4 there was no association with MRI score of the lateral compartment and subsequent change in oxford score (P value 0.458). Patellofemoral Compartment (PFC) MRI ICRS ranged from 0 to 4. There was no association between PFC ICRS score and subsequent change in oxford knee score (P value .276) Radiographs may under report severity of some medial sided knee osteoarthritis. We conclude that in patients with grade 3 KL score that would normally not be considered for UKR, pre-operative MRI might identify grade 4 ICRS scores and this subset of patients have equivalent outcomes to patients with radiographic Grade 4 KL medial compartment osteoarthritis.
The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic presents significant challenges to healthcare systems globally. Orthopaedic surgeons are at risk of contracting COVID-19 due to their close contact with patients in both outpatient and theatre environments. The aim of this review was to perform a literature review, including articles of other coronaviruses, to formulate guidelines for orthopaedic healthcare staff. A search of Medline, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, World Health Organization (WHO), and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) databases was performed encompassing a variety of terms including ‘coronavirus’, ‘covid-19’, ‘orthopaedic’, ‘personal protective environment’ and ‘PPE’. Online database searches identified 354 articles. Articles were included if they studied any of the other coronaviruses or if the basic science could potentially applied to COVID-19 (i.e. use of an inactivated virus with a similar diameter to COVID-19). Two reviewers independently identified and screened articles based on the titles and abstracts. 274 were subsequently excluded, with 80 full-text articles retrieved and assessed for eligibility. Of these, 66 were excluded as they compared personal protection equipment to no personal protection equipment or referred to prevention measures in the context of bacterial infections.Aim
Methods
