Aims. To identify unanswered questions about the prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and rehabilitation and delivery of care of first-time soft-tissue knee injuries (ligament injuries, patella dislocations, meniscal injuries, and articular cartilage) in children (aged 12 years and older) and adults. Methods. The James Lind Alliance (JLA) methodology for Priority Setting Partnerships was followed. An initial survey invited patients and healthcare professionals from the UK to submit any uncertainties regarding soft-tissue knee injury prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and rehabilitation and delivery of care. Over 1,000 questions were received. From these, 74 questions (identifying common concerns) were formulated and checked against the best available evidence. An interim survey was then conducted and 27 questions were taken forward to the final workshop, held in January 2023, where they were discussed, ranked, and scored in multiple rounds of prioritization. This was conducted by healthcare professionals, patients, and carers. Results. The top ten included questions regarding prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and rehabilitation. The number one question was, ‘How urgently do soft-tissue knee injuries need to be treated for the best outcome?’. This reflects the concerns of patients, carers, and the wider multidisciplinary team. Conclusion. This validated process has generated ten important priorities for future soft-tissue knee injury research. These have been submitted to the National Institute for Health and Care Research. All 27 questions in the final workshop have been published on the JLA website. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(3):232–239

Aims. 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. Methods. 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. Results. A total of 769 questions were received during the initial survey with national reach across the UK. These were refined into 32 unique questions by an independent information specialist. The interim prioritization survey was completed by 201 respondents and 25 questions were taken to a final consensus group meeting between patients, carers, and healthcare professionals. Consensus was reached for ranking the top ten questions for publication and dissemination. Conclusions. The top ten research priorities focused on pain, infection, stiffness, health service configuration, surgical and non-surgical management strategies, and outcome measures. This list will guide funders and help focus research efforts within the knee arthroplasty community. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(9):1176–1182

Aims

There has been a recent resurgence in interest in combined partial knee arthroplasty (PKA) as an alternative to total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The varied terminology used to describe these procedures leads to confusion and ambiguity in communication between surgeons, allied health professionals, and patients. A standardized classification system is required for patient safety, accurate clinical record-keeping, clear communication, correct coding for appropriate remuneration, and joint registry data collection.

Aims

The purpose of the present study was to compare patient-specific instrumentation (PSI) and conventional surgical instrumentation (CSI) for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in terms of early implant migration, alignment, surgical resources, patient outcomes, and costs.

Aims

The aim of this study was to assess the influence of obesity on the clinical outcomes and survivorship ten years postoperatively in patients who underwent a fixed-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA).

In the absence of patellar resurfacing, we have previously shown that the use of electrocautery around the margin of the patella improved the one-year clinical outcome of total knee replacement (TKR). In this prospective randomised study we compared the mean 3.7 year (1.1 to 4.2) clinical outcomes of 300 TKRs performed with and without electrocautery of the patellar rim: this is an update of a previous report. The overall prevalence of anterior knee pain was 32% (95% confidence intervals [CI] 26 to 39), and 26% (95% CI 18 to 35) in the intervention group compared with 38% (95% CI 29 to 48) in the control group (chi-squared test; p = 0.06). The overall prevalence of anterior knee pain remained unchanged between the one-year and 3.7 year follow-up (chi-squared test; p = 0.12). The mean total Western Ontario McMasters Universities Osteoarthritis Indices and the American Knee Society knee and function scores at 3.7 years’ follow-up were similar in the intervention and control groups (repeated measures analysis of variance p = 0.43, p = 0.09 and p = 0.59, respectively). There were no complications. A total of ten patients (intervention group three, control group seven) required secondary patellar resurfacing after the first year.

Our study suggests that the improved clinical outcome with electrocautery denervation compared with no electrocautery is not maintained at a mean of 3.7 years’ follow-up.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:473–8.

The efficacy of circumpatellar electrocautery in reducing the incidence of post-operative anterior knee pain is unknown. We conducted a single-centre, outcome-assessor and patient-blinded, parallel-group, randomised, controlled trial to compare circumpatellar electrocautery with no electrocautery in total knee replacement in the absence of patellar resurfacing. Patients requiring knee replacement for primary osteoarthritis were randomly assigned circumpatellar electrocautery (intervention group) or no electrocautery (control group). The primary outcome measure was the incidence of anterior knee pain. A secondary measure was the standardised clinical and patient-reported outcomes determined by the American Knee Society scores and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) osteoarthritis index. A total of 131 knees received circumpatellar electrocautery and 131 had no electrocautery.

The overall incidence of anterior knee pain at follow-up at one year was 26% (20% to 31%), with 19% (12% to 26%) in the intervention group and 32% (24% to 40%) in the control group (p = 0.02). The relative risk reduction from electrocautery was 40% (9% to 61%) and the number needed to treat was 7.7 (4.3 to 41.4). The intervention group had a better mean total WOMAC score at follow-up at one year compared with the control group (16.3 (0 to 77.7) versus 21.6 (0 to 76.7), p = 0.04). The mean post-operative American Knee Society knee scores and function scores were similar in the intervention and control groups (knee score: 92.4 (55 to 100) versus 90.4 (51 to 100), respectively (p = 0.14); function score: 86.5 (15 to 100) versus 84.5 (30 to 100), respectively (p = 0.49)).

Our study suggests that in the absence of patellar resurfacing electrocautery around the margin of the patella improves the outcome of total knee replacement.