Objectives. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is a potential treatment for isolated bone on bone osteoarthritis when limited to a single compartment. The risk for revision of UKA is three times higher than for total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The aim of this review was to discuss the different revision options after UKA failure. Materials and Methods. A search was performed for English language articles published between 2006 and 2016. After reviewing titles and abstracts, 105 papers were selected for further analysis. Of these, 39 papers were deemed to contain clinically relevant data to be included in this review. Results. The most common reasons for failure are liner dislocation, aseptic loosening, disease progression of another compartment and unexplained pain. . UKA can be revised to or with another UKA if the failure mode allows reconstruction of the joint with UKA components. In case of disease progression another UKA can be added, either at the patellofemoral joint or at the remaining tibiofemoral joint. Often the accompanying damage to the knee joint doesn’t allow these two former techniques resulting in a primary TKA. In a third of cases, revision TKA components are necessary. This is usually on the tibial side where augments and stems might be required. Conclusions. In case of failure of UKA, several less invasive revision techniques remain available to obtain primary results. Revision in a late stage of failure or because of surgical mistakes might ask for the use of revision components limiting the clinical outcome for the patients. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B(1 Supple A):65–9

Aims

The primary aim of this study was to assess whether patients waiting six months or more for a total hip (THA) or knee (KA) arthroplasty had a deterioration in their health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Secondary aims were to assess changes in frailty and the number of patients living in a state considered to be worse than death (WTD), and factors associated with changes in HRQoL and frailty.

Aims

The primary aim was to assess change in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of patients as they waited from six to 12 months for a total hip (THA) or total or partial knee arthroplasty (KA). Secondary aims were to assess change in joint-specific function, mental health, quality of sleep, number living in a state worse than death (WTD), wellbeing, and patient satisfaction with their healthcare.

Aims

The purpose of this study was to determine the association between prior sleeve gastrectomy in patients undergoing primary total hip and knee arthroplasty, and 90-day complications, incidence of revision arthroplasty, and patient-reported outcome scores at final follow-up.

Aims

The aim of this study was to conduct a cross-sectional, observational cohort study of patients presenting for revision of a total hip, or total or unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, to understand current routes to revision surgery and explore differences in symptoms, healthcare use, reason for revision, and the revision surgery (surgical time, components, length of stay) between patients having regular follow-up and those without.

We have reviewed 65 bipolar arthroplasties of the hip in 55 patients with osteoarthritis secondary to dysplasia. The mean age at operation was 56 years (42 to 79) and the mean period of follow-up was 7.2 years (5.0 to 13.0). The average Merle d’Aubigné and Postel score before operation was 10.3 and at final follow-up 15.0. There were excellent or good results in 42 hips (65%). Migration of the outer head was observed in 50 hips (77%), most often in the group with a centre-edge angle of less than 0°, an acetabular head index of less than 60%, coverage of the outer head by the original acetabulum of less than +10° and after bone grafting of the acetabulum. This migration was progressive in 31 (62%) of the 50 hips, with massive osteolysis of the acetabulum in eight. The extent and progression of migration were closely associated with this osteolysis. Four hips required revision for extensive migration of the outer head with destruction of the acetabulum or severe acetabular osteolysis, and nine hips are awaiting revision for failure of the bipolar prosthetic head. The overall failure rate was 18%. We report major problems after bipolar hip arthroplasty for osteoarthritis secondary to hip dysplasia with progressive migration of the outer head and massive acetabular osteolysis at five years or more after operation

Aims

Increasing demand for total hip and knee arthroplasty (THA/TKA) and associated follow-up has placed huge demands on orthopaedic services. Feasible follow-up mechanisms are therefore essential.

We reviewed the outcome of 69 uncemented, custom-made, distal femoral endoprosthetic replacements performed in 69 patients between 1994 and 2006. There were 31 women and 38 men with a mean age at implantation of 16.5 years (5 to 37). All procedures were performed for primary malignant bone tumours of the distal femur. At a mean follow-up of 124.2 months (4 to 212), 53 patients were alive, with one patient lost to follow-up. All nine implants (13.0%) were revised due to aseptic loosening at a mean of 52 months (8 to 91); three implants (4.3%) were revised due to fracture of the shaft of the prosthesis and three patients (4.3%) had a peri-prosthetic fracture. Bone remodelling associated with periosteal cortical thinning adjacent to the uncemented intramedullary stem was seen in 24 patients but this did not predispose to failure. All aseptically loose implants in this series were diagnosed to be loose within the first five years.

The results from this study suggest that custom-made uncemented distal femur replacements have a higher rate of aseptic loosening compared to published results for this design when used with cemented fixation. Loosening of uncemented replacements occurs early indicating that initial fixation of the implant is crucial.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:263–9.

We analysed data from the Oxford hip and knee questionnaires collected by the New Zealand Joint Registry at six months and five years after joint replacement, to determine if there was any relationship between the scores and the risk of early revision. Logistic regression of the six-month scores indicated that for every one-unit decrease in the Oxford score, the risk of revision within two years increased by 9.7% for total hip replacement (THR), 9.9% for total knee replacement (TKR) and 12.0% for unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR). Our findings showed that 70% of the revisions within two years for TKR and 67% for THR and UKR would have been captured by monitoring the lowest 22%, 28% and 28%, respectively, of the Oxford scores. When analysed using the Kalairajah classification a score of < 27 (poor) was associated with a risk of revision within two years of 7.6% for THR, 7.0% for TKR and 24.3% for UKR, compared with risks of 0.7%, 0.7% and 1.8%, respectively, for scores > 34 (good or excellent).

Our study confirms that the Oxford hip and knee scores at six months are useful predictors of early revision after THR and TKR and we recommend their use for the monitoring of the outcome and potential failure in these patients.