The James Lind Alliance aims to bring patients, carers, and clinicians together to identify uncertainties regarding care. A Priority Setting Partnership was established by the British Association for Surgery of the Knee in conjunction with the James Lind Alliance to identify research priorities related to the assessment, management, and rehabilitation of patients with persistent symptoms after knee arthroplasty. The project was conducted using the James Lind Alliance protocol. A steering group was convened including patients, surgeons, anaesthetists, nurses, physiotherapists, and researchers. Partner organizations were recruited. A survey was conducted on a national scale through which patients, carers, and healthcare professionals submitted key unanswered questions relating to problematic knee arthroplasties. These were analyzed, aggregated, and synthesized into summary questions and the relevant evidence was checked. After confirming that these were not answered in the current literature, 32 questions were taken forward to an interim prioritization survey. Data from this survey informed a shortlist taken to a final consensus meeting.Aims
Methods
Medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL) reconstruction
is used to treat patellar instability and recurrent patellar dislocation.
Anatomical studies have found the MPFL to be a double-bundle structure.
We carried out a meta-analysis of studies reporting outcomes of
patellofemoral reconstruction using hamstring tendon autograft in
a double-bundle configuration and patellar fixation via mediolateral
patellar tunnels. A literature search was undertaken with no language restriction
in various databases from their year of inception to July 2012.
The primary outcome examined was the post-operative Kujala score.
We identified 320 MPFL reconstructions in nine relevant articles.
The combined mean post-operative Kujala score was 92.02 (standard
error ( Cite this article:
Mobile-bearing (MB) total knee replacement (TKR)
was introduced to reduce the risk of aseptic loosening and wear of
polyethylene inserts. However, no consistent clinical advantages
of mobile- over fixed-bearing (FB) TKR have been found. In this
study we evaluated whether mobile bearings have an advantage over
fixed bearings with regard to revision rates and clinical outcome
scores. Furthermore, we determined which modifying variables affected
the outcome. A systematic search of the literature was conducted to collect
clinical trials comparing MB and FB in primary TKR. The primary
outcomes were revision rates for any reason, aseptic loosening and
wear. Secondary outcomes included range of movement, Knee Society
score (KSS), Oxford knee score (OKS), Short-Form 12 (SF-12) score
and radiological parameters. Meta-regression techniques were used
to explore factors modifying the observed effect. Our search yielded 1827 publications, of which 41 studies met
our inclusion criteria, comprising over 6000 TKRs. Meta-analyses
showed no clinically relevant differences in terms of revision rates,
clinical outcome scores or patient-reported outcome measures between
MB and FB TKRs. It appears that theoretical assumptions of superiority
of MB over FB TKR are not borne out in clinical practice. Cite this article:
