Aims. There are two techniques widely used to determine the rotational
alignment of the components in total knee arthroplasty (TKA); gap
balancing (GB) and measured resection (MR). Which technique is the
best remains controversial. We aimed to investigate this in a systematic
review and meta-analysis. Materials and Methods. In accordance with the methods of
Many surgeons choose to perform total knee arthroplasty (TKA) surgery with the aid of a tourniquet. A tourniquet is a device that fits around the leg and restricts blood flow to the limb. There is a need to understand whether tourniquets are safe, and if they benefit, or harm, patients. The aim of this study was to determine the benefits and harms of tourniquet use in TKA surgery. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials, and trial registries up to 26 March 2020. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), comparing TKA with a tourniquet versus without a tourniquet. Outcomes included: pain, function, serious adverse events (SAEs), blood loss, implant stability, duration of surgery, and length of hospital stay.Aims
Methods
Patients with a deformity of the hindfoot present a particular challenge when performing total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The literature contains little information about the relationship between TKA and hindfoot alignment. This systematic review aimed to determine from both clinical and radiological studies whether TKA would alter a preoperative hindfoot deformity and whether the outcome of TKA is affected by the presence of a postoperative hindfoot deformity. A systematic literature search was performed in the databases PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Search terms consisted of “total knee arthroplasty/replacement” combined with “hindfoot/ankle alignment”. Inclusion criteria were all English language studies analyzing the association between TKA and the alignment of the hindfoot, including the clinical or radiological outcomes. Exclusion criteria consisted of TKA performed with a concomitant extra-articular osteotomy and case reports or expert opinions. An assessment of quality was conducted using the modified Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS). The review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42019106980).Aims
Methods
The aim of this consensus was to develop a definition of post-operative
fibrosis of the knee. An international panel of experts took part in a formal consensus
process composed of a discussion phase and three Delphi rounds.Aims
Patients and Methods
Using meta-analysis we compared the survival and clinical outcomes of cemented and uncemented techniques in primary total knee replacement. We reviewed randomised controlled trials and observational studies comparing cemented and uncemented fixation. Our primary outcome was survival of the implant free of aseptic loosening. Our secondary outcome was joint function as measured by the Knee Society score. We identified 15 studies that met our final eligibility criteria. The combined odds ratio for failure of the implant due to aseptic loosening for the uncemented group was 4.2 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.7 to 6.5) (p <
0.0001). Subgroup analysis of data only from randomised controlled trials showed no differences between the groups for odds of aseptic loosening (odds ratio 1.9, 95% CI 0.55 to 6.40, p = 0.314). The weighted mean difference for the Knee Society score was 0.005 (95% CI −0.26 to 0.26) (p = 0.972). There was improved survival of the cemented compared to uncemented implants, with no statistically significant difference in the mean Knee Society score between groups for all pooled data.