Aims

Uncemented mobile bearing designs in medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) have seen an increase over the last decade. However, there are a lack of large-scale studies comparing survivorship of these specific designs to commonly used cemented mobile and fixed bearing designs. The aim of this study was to evaluate the survivorship of these designs.

Aims. The purpose of this study was to assess mid-term survivorship following primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) with Optetrak Logic components and identify the most common revision indications at a single institution. Methods. We identified a retrospective cohort of 7,941 Optetrak primary TKAs performed from January 2010 to December 2018. We reviewed the intraoperative findings of 369 TKAs that required revision TKA from January 2010 to December 2021 and the details of the revision implants used. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to determine survivorship. Cox regression analysis was used to examine the impact of patient variables and year of implantation on survival time. Results. The estimated survivorship free of all-cause revision was 98% (95% confidence interval (CI) 97% to 98%), 95% (95% CI 95% to 96%), and 86% (95% CI 83% to 88%) at two, five, and ten years, respectively. In 209/369 revisions there was a consistent constellation of findings with varying severity that included polyethylene wear and associated synovitis, osteolysis, and component loosening. This failure mode, which we refer to as aseptic mechanical failure, was the most common revision indication. The mean time from primary TKA to revision for aseptic mechanical failure was five years (5 months to 11 years). Conclusion. In this series of nearly 8,000 primary TKAs performed with a specific implant, we identified a lower-than-expected mid-term survivorship and a high number of revisions with a unique presentation. This study, along with the recent recall of the implant, confirms the need for frequent monitoring of patients with Optetrak TKAs given the incidence of polyethylene failure, osteolysis, and component loosening. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(3):277–283

Aims. This study aimed to determine outcomes of isolated tibial insert exchange (ITIE) during revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Methods. From 1985 to 2016, 270 ITIEs were performed at one institution for instability (55%, n = 148), polyethylene wear (39%, n = 105), insert fracture/dissociation (5%, n = 14), or stiffness (1%, n = 3). Patients with component loosening, implant malposition, infection, and extensor mechanism problems were excluded. Results. Survivorship free of any re-revision was 68% at ten years. For the indication of insert wear, survivorship free of any re-revision at ten years was 74%. Re-revisions were more frequent for index diagnoses other than wear (hazard ratio (HR) 1.9; p = 0.013), with ten-year survivorships of 69% for instability and 37% for insert fracture/dissociation. Following ITIE for wear, the most common reason for re-revision was aseptic loosening (33%, n = 7). For other indications, the most common reason for re-revision was recurrence of the original diagnosis. Mean Knee Society Scores improved from 54 (0 to 94) preoperatively to 77 (38 to 94) at ten years. Conclusion. After ITIE, the risk and reasons for re-revision correlated with preoperative indications. The best results were for polyethylene wear. For other diagnoses, the re-revision rate was higher and the failure mode was most commonly recurrence of the original indication for the revision TKA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(6):1103–1110

Aims. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) has higher revision rates than total knee arthroplasty (TKA). As revision of UKA may be less technically demanding than revision TKA, UKA patients with poor functional outcomes may be more likely to be offered revision than TKA patients with similar outcomes. The aim of this study was to compare clinical thresholds for revisions between TKA and UKA using revision incidence and patient-reported outcomes, in a large, matched cohort at early, mid-, and late-term follow-up. Methods. Analyses were performed on propensity score-matched patient cohorts of TKAs and UKAs (2:1) registered in the New Zealand Joint Registry between 1 January 1999 and 31 December 2019 with an Oxford Knee Score (OKS) response at six months (n, TKA: 16,774; UKA: 8,387), five years (TKA: 6,718; UKA: 3,359), or ten years (TKA: 3,486; UKA: 1,743). Associations between OKS and revision within two years following the score were examined. Thresholds were compared using receiver operating characteristic analysis. Reasons for aseptic revision were compared using cumulative incidence with competing risk. Results. Fewer TKA patients with ‘poor’ outcomes (≤ 25) subsequently underwent revision compared with UKA at six months (5.1% vs 19.6%; p < 0.001), five years (4.3% vs 12.5%; p < 0.001), and ten years (6.4% vs 15.0%; p = 0.024). Compared with TKA, the relative risk for UKA was 2.5-times higher for ‘unknown’ reasons, bearing dislocations, and disease progression. Conclusion. Compared with TKA, more UKA patients with poor outcomes underwent revision from early to long-term follow-up, and were more likely to undergo revision for ‘unknown’ reasons, which suggest a lower clinical threshold for UKA. For UKA, revision risk was higher for bearing dislocations and disease progression. There is supporting evidence that the higher revision UKA rates are associated with lower clinical thresholds for revision and additional modes of failure. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(3):269–276

Aims

The aim of this study was to measure the effect of hospital case volume on the survival of revision total knee arthroplasty (RTKA).

Aims

The primary objective of this study was to compare migration of the cemented ATTUNE fixed bearing cruciate retaining tibial component with the cemented Press-Fit Condylar (PFC)-sigma fixed bearing cruciate retaining tibial component. The secondary objectives included comparing clinical and radiological outcomes and Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs).

Previous studies of failure mechanisms leading to revision total knee replacement (TKR) performed between 1986 and 2000 determined that many failed early, with a disproportionate amount accounted for by infection and implant-associated factors including wear, loosening and instability. Since then, efforts have been made to improve implant performance and instruct surgeons in best practice. Recently our centre participated in a multi-centre evaluation of 844 revision TKRs from 2010 to 2011. The purpose was to report a detailed analysis of failure mechanisms over time and to see if failure modes have changed over the past 10 to 15 years. Aseptic loosening was the predominant mechanism of failure (31.2%), followed by instability (18.7%), infection (16.2%), polyethylene wear (10.0%), arthrofibrosis (6.9%) and malalignment (6.6%). The mean time to failure was 5.9 years (ten days to 31 years), 35.3% of all revisions occurred at less than two years, and 60.2% in the first five years. With improvements in implant and polyethylene manufacture, polyethylene wear is no longer a leading cause of failure. Early mechanisms of failure are primarily technical errors. In addition to improving implant longevity, industry and surgeons must work together to decrease these technical errors. All reports on failure of TKR contain patients with unexplained pain who not infrequently have unmet expectations. Surgeons must work to achieve realistic patient expectations pre-operatively, and therefore, improve patient satisfaction post-operatively.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B(11 Suppl A):101–4.

Aims

The aim of this to study was to compare the previously unreported long-term survival outcome of the Oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) performed by trainee surgeons and consultants.

Aims

Since redesign of the Oxford phase III mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) femoral component to a twin-peg design, there has not been a direct comparison to total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Thus, we explored differences between the two cohorts.