The records of patients aged 50 years or over who underwent primary reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament between 1990 and 2002 were reviewed. There were 35 knees in 34 patients that met the inclusion criteria. The mean age of the patients was 57 years (50 to 66) and the mean clinical follow-up was for 72 months (25 to 173). A total of 23 knees were reconstructed with patellar tendon allograft, and 12 with patellar tendon autograft. The mean pre-operative knee extension was 1° (−5° to 10°) and flexion was 129° (125° to 150°) and at follow-up these values were 0° (−5° to 5°) and 135° (120° to 150°), respectively. Pre-operatively there were 31 knees (89%) with a Lachman grade 2+ or 3+. Post-operatively, 33 knees (94%) were Lachman grade 0 or 1+. The mean pre- and post-operative International Knee Documentation Committee scores were 39 (23 to 72) and 90 (33 to 100) respectively. The mean pre- and post-operative Lysholm scores were 50 (18 to 68) and 92 (28 to 100) respectively and the mean University of California Los Angeles activity scores were 8.5 before injury (4 to 10), 4.3 (3 to 6) after injury and 8.3 (4 to 10) post-operatively. There were three graft failures (8.6%) requiring revision. We conclude that reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament in carefully-selected patients aged 50 years or over can achieve similar results to those in younger patients, with no increased risk of complications

Aims

The aim of this study was to compare any differences in the primary outcome (biphasic flexion knee moment during gait) of robotic arm-assisted bi-unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (bi-UKA) with conventional mechanically aligned total knee arthroplasty (TKA) at one year post-surgery.

Aims. Our objective is to describe our early and mid-term results with the use of a new simple primary knee prosthesis as an articulating spacer in planned two-stage management for infected knee arthroplasty. As a second objective, we compared outcomes between the group with a retained first stage and those with a complete two-stage revision. Methods. We included 47 patients (48 knees) with positive criteria for infection, with a minimum two-year follow-up, in which a two-stage approach with an articulating spacer with new implants was used. Patients with infection control, and a stable and functional knee were allowed to retain the initial first-stage components. Outcomes recorded included: infection control rate, reoperations, final range of motion (ROM), and quality of life assessment (QoL) including Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, Oxford Knee Score, 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey questionnaire, and University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) activity score and satisfaction score. These outcomes were evaluated and compared to additional cohorts of patients with retained first-stage interventions and those with a complete two-stage revision. Mean follow-up was 3.7 years (2.0 to 6.5). Results. Eight knees failed directly related to lack of infection control (16%), and two patients (two knees) died within the first year for causes not directly related, giving an initial success rate of 79% (38/48). Secondary success rate after a subsequent procedure was 91% (44/48 knees). From the initially retained spacers, four knees (22%) required a second-stage revision for continuous symptoms and one (5%) for an acute infection. There were no significant differences regarding the failure rate due to infection, ROM, and QoL assessment between patients with a retained first-stage procedure and those who underwent a second-stage operation. Conclusion. Our protocol of two-stage exchange for infected knee arthroplasties with an articulating spacer and using new primary knee implants achieves adequate infection control. Retained first-stage operations achieve comparable results in selected cases, with no difference in infection control, ROM, and QoL assessment in comparison to patients with completed two-stage revision surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(7):852–860

Aims

Robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) promises accurate implant placement with the potential of improved survival and functional outcomes. The aim of this study was to present the current evidence for robotic-assisted UKA and describe the outcome in terms of implant positioning, range of movement (ROM), function and survival, and the types of robot and implants that are currently used.

Aims

The objectives of this study were to compare postoperative pain, analgesia requirements, inpatient functional rehabilitation, time to hospital discharge, and complications in patients undergoing conventional jig-based unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) versus robotic-arm assisted UKA.