Aims. This study investigates whether primary knee arthroplasty (KA) restores health-related quality of life (HRQoL) to levels expected in the general population. Methods. This retrospective case-control study compared HRQoL data from two sources: patients undergoing primary KA in a university-teaching hospital (2013 to 2019), and the Health Survey for England (HSE; 2010 to 2012). Patient-level data from the HSE were used to represent the general population. Propensity score matching was used to balance covariates and facilitate group comparisons. A propensity score was estimated using logistic regression based upon the covariates sex, age, and BMI. Two matched cohorts with 3,029 patients each were obtained for the adjusted analyses (median age 70.3 (interquartile range (IQR) 64 to 77); number of female patients 3,233 (53.4%); median BMI 29.7 kg/m. 2. (IQR 26.5 to 33.7)). HRQoL was measured using the three-level version of the EuroQol five-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L), and summarized using the Index and EuroQol visual analogue scale (EQ-VAS) scores. Results. Patients awaiting KA had significantly lower EQ-5D-3L Index scores than the general population (median 0.620 (IQR 0.16 to 0.69) vs median 0.796 (IQR 0.69 to 1.00); p < 0.001). By one year postoperatively, the median EQ-5D-3L Index score improved significantly in the KA cohort (mean change 0.32 (SD 0.33); p < 0.001), and demonstrated no clinically relevant differences when compared to the general population (median 0.796 (IQR 0.69 to 1.00) vs median 0.796 (IQR 0.69 to 1.00)). Compared to the general population cohort, the postoperative EQ-VAS was significantly higher in the KA cohort (p < 0.001). Subgroup comparisons demonstrated that older age groups had statistically better EQ-VAS scores than matched peers in the general population. Conclusion. Patients awaiting KA for osteoarthritis had significantly poorer HRQoL than the general population. However, within one year of surgery, primary KA restored HRQoL to levels expected for the patient’s age-, BMI-, and sex-matched peers. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(4):365–372

Aims. The aim of this study was to assess factors associated with the estimated lifetime risk of revision surgery after primary knee arthroplasty (KA). Methods. All patients from the Scottish Arthroplasty Project dataset undergoing primary KA during the period 1 January 1998 to 31 December 2019 were included. The cumulative incidence function for revision and death was calculated up to 20 years. Adjusted analyses used cause-specific Cox regression modelling to determine the influence of patient factors. The lifetime risk was calculated as a percentage for patients aged between 45 and 99 years using multiple-decrement life table methodology. Results. The estimated lifetime risk of revision ranged between 32.7% (95% confidence interval (CI) 22.6 to 47.3) for patients aged 45 to 49 years and 0.6% (95% CI 0.1 to 4.5) for patients aged over 90 years. At 20 years, the overall cumulative incidence of revision (6.8% (95% CI 6.6 to 7.0)) was significantly less than that of death (66.3% (95% CI 65.4 to 67.1)). Adjusted analyses demonstrated converse effect of increasing age on risk of revision (hazard ratio (HR) 0.5 (95% CI 0.5 to 0.6)) and death (HR 3.6 (95% CI 3.4 to 3.7)). Male sex was associated with increased risks of revision (HR 1.1 (95% CI 1.1 to 1.2); p < 0.001) and death (HR 1.4 (95% CI 1.3 to 1.4); p < 0.001). Compared to patients undergoing primary KA for osteoarthritis, patients with inflammatory arthropathy had a higher risk of death (HR 1.7 (95% CI 1.7 to 1.8); p < 0.001), but were less likely to be revised (HR 0.9 (95% CI 0.7 to 1.0); p < 0.001). Patients with a greater number of comorbidities (HR 1.4 (95% CI 1.3 to 1.4)) and greater levels of socioeconomic deprivation (HR 1.4 (95% CI 1.4 to 1.5)) were at increased risk of death, but neither increased the risk of revision. Conclusion. The estimated lifetime risk of revision KA varied depending on patient sex, age, and underlying diagnosis. Patients aged between 45 and 49 years had a one in three risk of undergoing revision surgery within their lifetime, which decreased with age to one in 159 in those aged 90 years or more. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(12):1313–1322

We discuss the role of primary knee arthroplasty in supracondylar and intercondylar fractures of the femur in elderly patients with reference to 13 cases. This method of treatment is shown to be effective and to have good results. It is recommended for all type C and some type A supracondylar fractures in old people

Aims

This study aimed to describe the use of revision knee arthroplasty in Australia and examine changes in lifetime risk over a decade.

We report a ten-year rate of survival of 96% for the cemented Freeman-Samuelson knee arthroplasty in patients from the Swedish Knee Registry and the Royal London Hospital with revision for aseptic loosening as the criterion for failure.

Out of a total of 623 patients who, over a ten-year period, underwent primary total knee replacement (TKR) without patellar resurfacing, 20 underwent secondary resurfacing for chronic anterior knee pain.

They were evaluated pre- and postoperatively using the clinical and radiological American Knee Society score. The mean follow-up was 36.1 months (12 to 104). The mean knee score improved from 46.7 to 62.2 points and the mean functional score from 44.7 to 52.2 points. Only 44.4% of the patients, however, reported some improvement; the remainder reported no change or deterioration. The radiographic alignment of the TKR did not influence the outcome of secondary resurfacing of the patella. Complications were noted in six of the 20 patients including fracture and instability of the patella and loss of movement.

Anterior knee pain after TKR remains difficult to manage. Secondary resurfacing of the patella is not advocated in all patients since it may increase patient dissatisfaction and hasten revision.

Aims. To compare rates of serious adverse events in patients undergoing revision knee arthroplasty with consideration of the indication for revision (urgent versus elective indications), and compare these with primary arthroplasty and re-revision arthroplasty. Methods. Patients undergoing primary knee arthroplasty were identified in the national Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) between 1 April 1997 to 31 March 2017. Subsequent revision and re-revision arthroplasty procedures in the same patients and same knee were identified. The primary outcome was 90-day mortality and a logistic regression model was used to investigate factors associated with 90-day mortality and secondary adverse outcomes, including infection (undergoing surgery), pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, and stroke. Urgent indications for revision arthroplasty were defined as infection or fracture, and all other indications (e.g. loosening, instability, wear) were included in the elective indications cohort. Results. A total of 939,021 primary knee arthroplasty procedures were included (939,021 patients), of which 40,854 underwent subsequent revision arthroplasty, and 9,100 underwent re-revision arthroplasty. Revision surgery for elective indications was associated with a 90-day rate of mortality of 0.44% (135/30,826; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.37 to 0.52) which was comparable to primary knee arthroplasty (0.46%; 4,292/939,021; 95% CI 0.44 to 0.47). Revision arthroplasty for infection was associated with a much higher mortality of 2.04% (184/9037; 95% CI 1.75 to 2.35; odds ratio (OR) 3.54; 95% CI 2.81 to 4.46), as was revision for periprosthetic fracture at 5.25% (52/991; 95% CI 3.94 to 6.82; OR 6.23; 95% CI 4.39 to 8.85). Higher rates of pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, and stroke were also observed in the infection and fracture cohort. Conclusion. Patients undergoing revision arthroplasty for urgent indications (infection or fracture) are at higher risk of mortality and serious adverse events in comparison to primary knee arthroplasty and revision arthroplasty for elective indications. These findings will be important for patient consent and shared decision-making and should inform service design for this patient cohort. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(10):1578–1585

Aims. Our unit was identified as a negative outlier in the national patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) programme, which has significant funding implications. As a centre that carries out a high volume of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA), our objectives were: 1) to determine whether the PROMs programme included primary UKA when calculating the gain in Oxford Knee Score (OKS); and 2) to determine the impact of excluding primary UKA on calculated OKS gains for primary knee arthroplasty. Materials and Methods. National PROMs data from England (2012 to 2016) were analyzed. Inclusion of UKA cases in the national PROMs programme was determined using clinical codes. Local OKS gain was calculated for UKA and TKA and compared with the published PROMs results for 2012/13. Results. Use of the recommended codes for primary UKA excluded 99.6% of UKAs locally and 97% nationally from PROMs programme analysis. Inclusion of primary UKAs in PROMs analysis improved our OKS gain from 15.1 (below average) to 16.3 (above average) for 2012/13 for primary knee arthroplasty. Conclusion. Exclusion of UKA patients from the PROMs programme is a nationwide issue that potentially introduces bias when comparing OKS gain between centres. Where commissioning decisions are based on routinely collected data, it is imperative that the underlying methodology is appropriate to generate valid results

Aims. The aim of this study was to identify variables associated with time to revision, demographic details associated with revision indication, and type of prosthesis employed, and to describe the survival of hinge knee arthroplasty (HKA) when used for first-time knee revision surgery and factors that were associated with re-revision. Methods. Patient demographic details, BMI, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, indication for revision, surgical approach, surgeon grade, implant type (fixed and rotating), time of revision from primary implantation, and re-revision if undertaken were obtained from the National Joint Registry data for England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the Isle of Man over an 18-year period (2003 to 2021). Results. There were 3,855 patient episodes analyzed with a median age of 73 years (interquartile range (IQR) 66 to 80), and the majority were female (n = 2,480, 64.3%). The median time to revision from primary knee arthroplasty was 1,219 days (IQR 579 to 2,422). Younger age (p < 0.001), decreasing ASA grade (p < 0.001), and indications for revision of sepsis (p < 0.001), unexplained pain (p < 0.001), non-polyethylene wear (p < 0.001), and malalignment (p < 0.001) were all associated with an earlier time to revision from primary implantation. The median follow-up was 4.56 years (range 0.00 to 17.52), during which there were 410 re-revisions. The overall unadjusted probability of re-revision for all revision HKAs at one, five, and ten years after surgery were 2.7% (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.2 to 3.3), 10.7% (95% CI 9.6 to 11.9), and 16.2% (95% CI 14.5 to 17.9), respectively. Male sex (p < 0.001), younger age (p < 0.001), revision for septic indications (p < 0.001) or implant fracture (p = 0.010), a fixed hinge (p < 0.001), or surgery performed by a non-consultant grade (p = 0.023) were independently associated with an increased risk of re-revision. Conclusion. There were several factors associated with time to first revision. The re-revision rate was 16.2% at ten years; however, the risk factors associated with an increased risk of re-revision could be used to counsel patients regarding their outcome. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(1):47–55

Aims. The purpose is to determine the non-inferiority of a smartphone-based exercise educational care management system after primary knee arthroplasty compared with a traditional in-person physiotherapy rehabilitation model. Methods. A multicentre prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted evaluating the use of a smartphone-based care management system for primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and partial knee arthroplasty (PKA). Patients in the control group (n = 244) received the respective institution’s standard of care with formal physiotherapy. The treatment group (n = 208) were provided a smartwatch and smartphone application. Early outcomes assessed included 90-day knee range of movement, EuroQoL five-dimension five-level score, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacement (KOOS JR) score, 30-day single leg stance (SLS) time, Time up and Go (TUG) time, and need for manipulation under anaesthesia (MUA). Results. Overall, 90-day mean flexion was not significantly different between the control (121° (SD 11.7°)) and treatment groups (121. o. ; p = 0.559); 90-day mean SLS was 22.7 seconds (SD 9.8) in controls and 24.3 seconds (SD 20.8) in treatment (p = 0.519); 90-day mean TUG times were 10.1 seconds (SD 4.8) in control and 9.3 seconds (SD 3.3) in treatment (p = 0.139). Mean KOOS JR scores were significantly different between control group (73.6 (SD 13.4)) and treatment group (70.4 (SD 12.6); p = 0.026). MUAs were performed in nine (3.7%) patients in the control group and four (1.9%) in the treatment group (p = 0.398). Physiotherapy was performed by 230 (94.4%) of control group and 123 (59.3%) of treatment group (p < 0.001). There were no significant differences between groups in postoperative urgent care visits, or readmissions within 90 days, with significantly fewer emergency department visits in the treatment group (16 (8.2%) vs five (2.5%), p = 0.014). Conclusion. The use of the smartwatch/smartphone care platform demonstrated non-inferiority of clinically significant outcomes to traditional care models, while requiring significantly less postoperative physiotherapy and fewer emergency department visits. This platform could aid in decreasing postoperative costs, while improving patient engagement and communication with the healthcare team. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(6 Supple A):3–12

Aims

Routinely collected patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have been useful to quantify and quality-assess provision of total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in the UK for the past decade. This study aimed to explore whether the outcome following primary THA and TKA had improved over the past seven years.

We obtained information from the Elective Orthopaedic Centre on 1523 patients with baseline and six-month Oxford hip scores (OHS) after undergoing primary hip replacement (THR) and 1784 patients with Oxford knee scores (OKS) for primary knee replacement (TKR) who completed a six-month satisfaction questionnaire. Receiver operating characteristic curves identified an absolute change in OHS of 14 points or more as the point that discriminates best between patients’ satisfaction levels and an 11-point change for the OKS. Satisfaction is highest (97.6%) in patients with an absolute change in OHS of 14 points or more, compared with lower levels of satisfaction (81.8%) below this threshold. Similarly, an 11-point absolute change in OKS was associated with 95.4% satisfaction compared with 76.5% below this threshold. For the six-month OHS a score of 35 points or more distinguished patients with the highest satisfaction level, and for the six-month OKS 30 points or more identified the highest level of satisfaction. The thresholds varied according to patients’ pre-operative score, where those with severe pre-operative pain/function required a lower six-month score to achieve the highest levels of satisfaction. Our data suggest that the choice of a six-month follow-up to assess patient-reported outcomes of THR/TKR is acceptable. The thresholds help to differentiate between patients with different levels of satisfaction, but external validation will be required prior to general implementation in clinical practice

We aim to explore the potential technologies for monitoring and assessment of patients undergoing arthroplasty by examining selected literature focusing on the technology currently available and reflecting on possible future development and application. The reviewed literature indicates a large variety of different hardware and software, widely available and used in a limited manner, to assess patients’ performance. There are extensive opportunities to enhance and integrate the systems which are already in existence to develop patient-specific pathways for rehabilitation.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(10):1104–1109.

Aims

The primary aim was to assess change in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of patients as they waited from six to 12 months for a total hip (THA) or total or partial knee arthroplasty (KA). Secondary aims were to assess change in joint-specific function, mental health, quality of sleep, number living in a state worse than death (WTD), wellbeing, and patient satisfaction with their healthcare.

Aims

The aim of this study was to determine the long-term mortality rate, and to identify factors associated with this, following primary and revision knee arthroplasty (KA).

Aims

The aim of this study is to compare the effectiveness and safety of thromboprophylactic treatments in patients undergoing primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA).

Aims

To estimate the measurement properties for the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) in patients undergoing revision knee arthroplasty (responsiveness, minimal detectable change (MDC-90), minimal important change (MIC), minimal important difference (MID), internal consistency, construct validity, and interpretability).

Aims

Due to the opioid epidemic in the USA, our service progressively decreased the number of opioid tablets prescribed at discharge after primary hip (THA) and knee (TKA) arthroplasty. The goal of this study was to analyze the effect on total morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs) prescribed and post-discharge opioid repeat prescriptions.

Aims

This study aimed to compare the effect of antibiotic-loaded bone cement (ALBC) versus plain bone cement (PBC) on revision rates for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) and all-cause revisions following primary elective total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA).