Aims

Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) with a highly congruent condylar-stabilized (CS) articulation may be advantageous due to increased stability versus cruciate-retaining (CR) designs, while mitigating the limitations of a posterior-stabilized construct. The aim was to assess ten-year implant survival and functional outcomes of a cemented single-radius TKA with a CS insert, performed without posterior cruciate ligament sacrifice.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(6):590–592.

Aims

The primary aim was to assess the rate of postoperative COVID-19 following hip and knee arthroplasty performed in March 2020 in the UK. The secondary aims were to assess whether there were clinical factors associated with COVID-19 status, the mortality rate of patients with COVID-19, and the rate of potential COVID-19 in patients not presenting to healthcare services.

We present a comparison of patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) in relation to patient age, in patients who had received a total (TKR) or unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR). The outcome was evaluated using the Oxford knee score (OKS), EuroQol (EQ-5D) and satisfaction scores. Patients aged 65 to 84 years demonstrated better pre-operative function scores than those aged < 65 years (OKS, p = 0.03; EQ-5D, p = 0.048) and those aged ≥ 85 years (OKS, p = 0.03). Post-operative scores were comparable across age groups, but a linear trend for greater post-operative improvement in OKS and EQ-5D was seen with decreasing age (p < 0.033). The overall mean satisfaction score at six months was 84.9, but those aged <  55 years exhibited a lower mean level of satisfaction (78.3) compared with all other age groups (all p < 0.031). The cumulative overall two-year revision rate was 1.3%. This study demonstrates that good early outcomes, as measured by the OKS and EQ-5D, can be anticipated following knee replacement regardless of the patient’s age, although younger patients gain greater improvement. However, the lower satisfaction in those aged < 55 years is a concern, and suggests that outcome is not fully encapsulated by the OKS and EQ-5D evaluation, and raises the question whether the OKS alone is an appropriate measure of pain and function in younger, more active individuals.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:38–44.

We obtained pre-operative and six-month post-operative Oxford hip (OHS) and knee scores (OKS) for 1523 patients who underwent total hip replacement and 1784 patients who underwent total knee replacement. They all also completed a six-month satisfaction question.

Scatter plots showed no relationship between pre-operative Oxford scores and six-month satisfaction scores. Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients were -0.04 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.09 to 0.01) between OHS and satisfaction and 0.04 (95% CI -0.01 to 0.08) between OKS and satisfaction. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was used to identify a cut-off point for the pre-operative OHS/OKS that identifies whether or not a patient is satisfied with surgery. We obtained an area under the ROC curve of 0.51 (95% CI 0.45 to 0.56) for hip replacement and 0.56 (95% CI 0.51 to 0.60) for knee replacement, indicating that pre-operative Oxford scores have no predictive accuracy in distinguishing satisfied from dissatisfied patients.

In the NHS widespread attempts are being made to use patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) data for the purpose of prioritising patients for surgery. Oxford hip and knee scores have no predictive accuracy in relation to post-operative patient satisfaction. This evidence does not support their current use in prioritising access to care.

Hip resurfacing is a bone-conserving procedure with respect to proximal femoral resection, but there is debate in the literature as to whether the same holds true for the acetabulum. We have investigated whether the Birmingham hip resurfacing conserves acetabular bone.

Between 1998 and 2005, 500 Birmingham hip resurfacings were performed by two surgeons. Between 1996 and 2005 they undertook 700 primary hip replacements, with an uncemented acetabular component. These patients formed the clinical material to compare acetabular component sizing. The Birmingham hip resurfacing group comprised 350 hips in men and 150 hips in women. The uncemented total hip replacement group comprised 236 hips in men and 464 hips in women. Age- and gender-matched analysis of a cohort of patients for the sizes of the acetabular components required for the two types of replacement was also undertaken. Additionally, an analysis of the sizes of the components used by each surgeon was performed.

For age-matched women, the mean outside diameter of the Birmingham hip resurfacing acetabular components was 2.03 mm less than that of the acetabular components in the uncemented total hip replacements (p < 0.0001). In similarly matched men there was no significant difference (p = 0.77). A significant difference was also found between the size of acetabular components used by the two surgeons for Birmingham hip resurfacing for both men (p = 0.0015) and women (p = 0.001). In contrast, no significant difference was found between the size of acetabular components used by the two surgeons for uncemented total hip replacement in either men or women (p = 0.06 and p = 0.14, respectively). This suggests that variations in acetabular preparation also influence acetabular component size in hip resurfacing.

We audited the relationship between obesity and the age at which hip and knee replacement was undertaken at our centre. The database was analysed for age, the Oxford hip or knee score and the body mass index (BMI) at the time of surgery. In total, 1369 patients were studied, 1025 treated by hip replacement and 344 by knee replacement. The patients were divided into five groups based on their BMI (normal, overweight, moderately obese, severely obese and morbidly obese).

The difference in the mean Oxford score at surgery was not statistically significant between the groups (p > 0.05). For those undergoing hip replacement, the mean age of the morbidly obese patients was ten years less than that of those with a normal BMI. For those treated by knee replacement, the difference was 13 years. The age at surgery fell significantly for those with a BMI > 35 kg/m² for both hip and knee replacement (p > 0.05). This association was stronger for patients treated by knee than by hip replacement.