Aims. The outcome of repeat septic revision after a failed one-stage exchange for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) remains unknown. The aim of this study was to report the infection-free and all-cause revision-free survival of repeat septic revision after a failed one-stage exchange, and to determine whether the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) stage is associated with subsequent infection-related failure. Methods. We retrospectively reviewed all repeat septic revision TKAs which were undertaken after a failed one-stage exchange between 2004 and 2017. A total of 33 repeat septic revisions (29 one-stage and four two-stage) met the inclusion criteria. The mean follow-up from repeat septic revision was 68.2 months (8.0 months to 16.1 years). The proportion of patients who had a subsequent infection-related failure and all-cause revision was reported and Kaplan-Meier survival for these endpoints was determined. Patients were categorized according to the MSIS staging system, and the association with subsequent infection was analyzed. Results. At the most recent follow-up, 17 repeat septic revisions (52%) had a subsequent infection-related failure and the five-year infection-free survival was 59% (95% confidence interval (CI) 39 to 74). A total of 19 underwent a subsequent all-cause revision (58%) and the five-year all-cause revision-free survival was 47% (95% CI 28 to 64). The most common indication for the first subsequent aseptic revision was loosening. The MSIS stage of the host status (p = 0.663) and limb status (p = 1.000) were not significantly associated with subsequent infection-related failure. Conclusion. Repeat septic revision after a failed one-stage exchange TKA for PJI is associated with a high rate of subsequent infection-related failure and all-cause revision. Patients should be counselled appropriately to manage expectations. The host and limb status according to the MSIS staging system were not associated with subsequent infection-related failure. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(3):386–393

Aims. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) has a higher risk of revision than total knee arthroplasty (TKA), particularly for younger patients. The outcome of knee arthroplasty is typically defined as implant survival or revision incidence after a defined number of years. This can be difficult for patients to conceptualize. We aimed to calculate the ‘lifetime risk’ of revision for UKA as a more meaningful estimate of risk projection over a patient’s remaining lifetime, and to compare this to TKA. Methods. Incidence of revision and mortality for all primary UKAs performed from 1999 to 2019 (n = 13,481) was obtained from the New Zealand Joint Registry (NZJR). Lifetime risk of revision was calculated for patients and stratified by age, sex, and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade. Results. The lifetime risk of revision was highest in the youngest age group (46 to 50 years; 40.4%) and decreased sequentially to the oldest (86 to 90 years; 3.7%). Across all age groups, lifetime risk of revision was higher for females (ranging from 4.3% to 43.4% vs males 2.9% to 37.4%) and patients with a higher ASA grade (ASA 3 to 4, ranging from 8.8% to 41.2% vs ASA 1 1.8% to 29.8%). The lifetime risk of revision for UKA was double that of TKA across all age groups (ranging from 3.7% to 40.4% for UKA, and 1.6% to 22.4% for TKA). The higher risk of revision in younger patients was associated with aseptic loosening in both sexes and pain in females. Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) accounted for 4% of all UKA revisions, in contrast with 27% for TKA; the risk of PJI was higher for males than females for both procedures. Conclusion. Lifetime risk of revision may be a more meaningful measure of arthroplasty outcomes than implant survival at defined time periods. This study highlights the higher lifetime risk of UKA revision for younger patients, females, and those with a higher ASA grade, which can aid with patient counselling prior to UKA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(6):672–679

Aims. The aim of this study was to identify variables associated with time to revision, demographic details associated with revision indication, and type of prosthesis employed, and to describe the survival of hinge knee arthroplasty (HKA) when used for first-time knee revision surgery and factors that were associated with re-revision. Methods. Patient demographic details, BMI, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, indication for revision, surgical approach, surgeon grade, implant type (fixed and rotating), time of revision from primary implantation, and re-revision if undertaken were obtained from the National Joint Registry data for England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the Isle of Man over an 18-year period (2003 to 2021). Results. There were 3,855 patient episodes analyzed with a median age of 73 years (interquartile range (IQR) 66 to 80), and the majority were female (n = 2,480, 64.3%). The median time to revision from primary knee arthroplasty was 1,219 days (IQR 579 to 2,422). Younger age (p < 0.001), decreasing ASA grade (p < 0.001), and indications for revision of sepsis (p < 0.001), unexplained pain (p < 0.001), non-polyethylene wear (p < 0.001), and malalignment (p < 0.001) were all associated with an earlier time to revision from primary implantation. The median follow-up was 4.56 years (range 0.00 to 17.52), during which there were 410 re-revisions. The overall unadjusted probability of re-revision for all revision HKAs at one, five, and ten years after surgery were 2.7% (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.2 to 3.3), 10.7% (95% CI 9.6 to 11.9), and 16.2% (95% CI 14.5 to 17.9), respectively. Male sex (p < 0.001), younger age (p < 0.001), revision for septic indications (p < 0.001) or implant fracture (p = 0.010), a fixed hinge (p < 0.001), or surgery performed by a non-consultant grade (p = 0.023) were independently associated with an increased risk of re-revision. Conclusion. There were several factors associated with time to first revision. The re-revision rate was 16.2% at ten years; however, the risk factors associated with an increased risk of re-revision could be used to counsel patients regarding their outcome. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(1):47–55

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 success of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is usually measured using functional outcome scores and revision-free survivorship. However, reporting the lifetime risk of revision may be more meaningful to patients when gauging risks, especially in younger patients. We aimed to assess the lifetime risk of revision for patients in different age categories at the time of undergoing primary TKA. Methods. The New Zealand Joint Registry database was used to obtain revision rates, mortality, and the indications for revision for all primary TKAs performed during an 18-year period between January 1999 and December 2016. Patients were stratified into age groups at the time of the initial TKA, and the lifetime risk of revision was calculated according to age, sex, and the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade. The most common indications for revision were also analyzed for each age group. Results. The overall ten-year survival rate was 95.6%. This was lowest in the youngest age group (between 46 and 50 years) and increased sequentially with increasing age. The lifetime risk of requiring revision was 22.4% in those aged between 46 and 50 years at the time of the initial surgery, and decreased linearly with increasing age to 1.15% in those aged between 90 and 95 years at the time of surgery. Higher ASA grades were associated with increased lifetime risk of revision in all age groups. The three commonest indications for revision were aseptic loosening, infection, and unexplained pain. Young males, aged between 46 and 50 years, had the highest lifetime risk of revision (25.2%). Conclusion. Lifetime risk of revision may be a more meaningful measure of outcome than implant survival at defined time periods when counselling patients prior to TKA. This study highlights the considerably higher lifetime risk of revision surgery for all indications, including infection, in younger male patients. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(2):235–241

Aims. This study aimed to describe the use of revision knee arthroplasty in Australia and examine changes in lifetime risk over a decade. Methods. De-identified individual-level data on all revision knee arthroplasties performed in Australia from 2007 to 2017 were obtained from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. Population data and life tables were obtained from the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The lifetime risk of revision surgery was calculated for each year using a standardized formula. Separate calculations were undertaken for males and females. Results. In total, 43,188 revision knee arthroplasty procedures were performed in Australia during the study period, with a median age at surgery of 69 years (interquartile range (IQR) 62 to 76). In 2017, revision knee arthroplasty rates were highest for males aged 70 to 79 years (102.9 procedures per 100,000 population). Lifetime risk of revision knee arthroplasty for females increased slightly from 1.61% (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.53% to 1.69%) in 2007 to 2.22% (95% CI 2.13% to 2.31%) in 2017. A similar pattern was evident for males, with a lifetime risk of 1.43% (95% CI 1.36% to 1.51%) in 2007 and 2.02% (95% CI 1.93% to 2.11%) in 2017. A decline in procedures performed for loosening/lysis (from 41% in 2007 to 24% in 2017) and pain (from 14% to 9%) was evident, while infection became an increasingly common indication (from 19% in 2007 to 29% in 2017). Conclusion. Well-validated national registry data can help us understand the epidemiology of revision knee arthroplasty, including changing clinical indications. Despite a small increase over a decade, the lifetime risk of revision knee arthroplasty in Australia is low at one in 45 females and one in 50 males. These methods offer a population-level approach to quantifying revision burden that can be used for ongoing national surveillance and between-country comparisons. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(5):613–619

Aims. The aim of this study was to assess factors associated with the estimated lifetime risk of revision surgery after primary knee arthroplasty (KA). Methods. All patients from the Scottish Arthroplasty Project dataset undergoing primary KA during the period 1 January 1998 to 31 December 2019 were included. The cumulative incidence function for revision and death was calculated up to 20 years. Adjusted analyses used cause-specific Cox regression modelling to determine the influence of patient factors. The lifetime risk was calculated as a percentage for patients aged between 45 and 99 years using multiple-decrement life table methodology. Results. The estimated lifetime risk of revision ranged between 32.7% (95% confidence interval (CI) 22.6 to 47.3) for patients aged 45 to 49 years and 0.6% (95% CI 0.1 to 4.5) for patients aged over 90 years. At 20 years, the overall cumulative incidence of revision (6.8% (95% CI 6.6 to 7.0)) was significantly less than that of death (66.3% (95% CI 65.4 to 67.1)). Adjusted analyses demonstrated converse effect of increasing age on risk of revision (hazard ratio (HR) 0.5 (95% CI 0.5 to 0.6)) and death (HR 3.6 (95% CI 3.4 to 3.7)). Male sex was associated with increased risks of revision (HR 1.1 (95% CI 1.1 to 1.2); p < 0.001) and death (HR 1.4 (95% CI 1.3 to 1.4); p < 0.001). Compared to patients undergoing primary KA for osteoarthritis, patients with inflammatory arthropathy had a higher risk of death (HR 1.7 (95% CI 1.7 to 1.8); p < 0.001), but were less likely to be revised (HR 0.9 (95% CI 0.7 to 1.0); p < 0.001). Patients with a greater number of comorbidities (HR 1.4 (95% CI 1.3 to 1.4)) and greater levels of socioeconomic deprivation (HR 1.4 (95% CI 1.4 to 1.5)) were at increased risk of death, but neither increased the risk of revision. Conclusion. The estimated lifetime risk of revision KA varied depending on patient sex, age, and underlying diagnosis. Patients aged between 45 and 49 years had a one in three risk of undergoing revision surgery within their lifetime, which decreased with age to one in 159 in those aged 90 years or more. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(12):1313–1322

Aims. In the last decade, perioperative advancements have expanded the use of outpatient primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Despite this, there remains limited data on expedited discharge after revision TKA. This study compared 30-day readmissions and reoperations in patients undergoing revision TKA with a hospital stay greater or less than 24 hours. The authors hypothesized that expedited discharge in select patients would not be associated with increased 30-day readmissions and reoperations. Methods. Aseptic revision TKAs in the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database were reviewed from 2013 to 2020. TKAs were stratified by length of hospital stay (greater or less than 24 hours). Patient demographic details, medical comorbidities, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, operating time, components revised, 30-day readmissions, and reoperations were compared. Multivariate analysis evaluated predictors of discharge prior to 24 hours, 30-day readmission, and reoperation. Results. Of 21,610 aseptic revision TKAs evaluated, 530 were discharged within 24 hours. Short-stay patients were younger (63.1 years (49 to 78) vs 65.1 years (18 to 94)), with lower BMI (32.3 kg/m. 2. (17 to 47) vs 33.6 kg/m. 2. (19 to 54) and lower ASA grades. Diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hypertension, and cancer were all associated with a hospital stay over 24 hours. Single component revisions (56.8% (n = 301) vs 32.4% (n = 6,823)), and shorter mean operating time (89.7 minutes (25 to 275) vs 130.2 minutes (30 to 517)) were associated with accelerated discharge. Accelerated discharge was not associated with 30-day readmission and reoperation. Conclusion. Accelerated discharge after revision TKA did not increase short-term complications, readmissions, or reoperations. Further efforts to decrease hospital stays in this setting should be evaluated. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(12):1323–1328

Aims. The aim of this study was to determine the long-term mortality rate, and to identify factors associated with this, following primary and revision knee arthroplasty (KA). Methods. Data from the Scottish Arthroplasty Project (1998 to 2019) were retrospectively analyzed. Patient mortality data were linked from the National Records of Scotland. Analyses were performed separately for the primary and revised KA cohorts. The standardized mortality ratio (SMR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated for the population at risk. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards were used to identify predictors and estimate relative mortality risks. Results. At a median 7.4 years (interquartile range (IQR) 4.0 to 11.6) follow-up, 27.8% of primary (n = 27,474/98,778) and 31.3% of revision (n = 2,611/8,343) KA patients had died. Both primary and revision cohorts had lower mortality rates than the general population (SMR 0.74 (95% CI 0.73 to 0.74); p < 0.001; SMR 0.83 (95% CI 0.80 to 0.86); p < 0.001, respectively), which persisted for 12 and eighteight years after surgery, respectively. Factors associated with increased risk of mortality after primary KA included male sex (hazard ratio (HR) 1.40 (95% CI 1.36 to 1.45)), increasing socioeconomic deprivation (HR 1.43 (95% CI 1.36 to 1.50)), inflammatory polyarthropathy (HR 1.79 (95% CI 1.68 to 1.90)), greater number of comorbidities (HR 1.59 (95% CI 1.51 to 1.68)), and periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) requiring revision (HR 1.92 (95% CI 1.57 to 2.36)) when adjusting for age. Similarly, male sex (HR 1.36 (95% CI 1.24 to 1.49)), increasing socioeconomic deprivation (HR 1.31 (95% CI 1.12 to 1.52)), inflammatory polyarthropathy (HR 1.24 (95% CI 1.12 to 1.37)), greater number of comorbidities (HR 1.64 (95% CI 1.33 to 2.01)), and revision for PJI (HR 1.35 (95% 1.18 to 1.55)) were independently associated with an increased risk of mortality following revision KA when adjusting for age. Conclusion. The SMR of patients undergoing primary and revision KA was lower than that of the general population and remained so for several years post-surgery. However, approximately one in four patients undergoing primary and one in three patients undergoing revision KA died within tenten years of surgery. Several patient and surgical factors, including PJI, were associated with the risk of mortality within ten years of primary and revision surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(1):45–52

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. Methods. A total of 21,610 medial UKAs from 2007 to 2018 were selected from the Dutch Arthroplasty Register. Multivariate Cox regression analyses were used to compare uncemented mobile bearings with cemented mobile and fixed bearings. Adjustments were made for patient and surgical factors, with their interactions being considered. Reasons and type of revision in the first two years after surgery were assessed. Results. In hospitals performing less than 100 cases per year, cemented mobile bearings reported comparable adjusted risks of revision as uncemented mobile bearings. However, in hospitals performing more than 100 cases per year, the adjusted risk of revision was higher for cemented mobile bearings compared to uncemented mobile bearings (hazard ratio 1.78 (95% confidence interval 1.34 to 2.35)). The adjusted risk of revision between cemented fixed bearing and uncemented mobile bearing was comparable, independent of annual hospital volume. In addition, 12.3% of uncemented mobile bearing, 20.3% of cemented mobile bearing, and 41.5% of uncemented fixed bearing revisions were for tibial component loosening. The figures for instability were 23.6%, 14.5% and 11.7%, respectively, and for periprosthetic fractures were 10.0%, 2.8%, and 3.5%. Bearing exchange was the type of revision in 40% of uncemented mobile bearing, 24.3% of cemented mobile bearing, and 5.3% cemented fixed bearing revisions. Conclusion. The findings of this study demonstrated improved survival with use of uncemented compared to cemented mobile bearings in medial UKA, only in those hospitals performing more than 100 cases per year. Cemented fixed bearings reported comparable survival results as uncemented mobile bearings, regardless of the annual hospital volume. The high rates of instability, periprosthetic fractures, and bearing exchange in uncemented mobile bearings emphasize the need for further research. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(7):1261–1269

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. Aseptic loosening of the tibial component is a frequent cause of failure in primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Management options include an isolated tibial revision or full component revision. A full component revision is frequently selected by surgeons unfamiliar with the existing implant or who simply wish to “start again”. This option adds morbidity compared with an isolated tibial revision. While isolated tibial revision has a lower morbidity, it is technically more challenging due to difficulties with exposure and maintaining prosthetic stability. This study was designed to compare these two reconstructive options. Methods. Patients undergoing revision TKA for isolated aseptic tibial loosening between 2012 and 2017 were identified. Those with revision implants or revised for infection, instability, osteolysis, or femoral component loosening were excluded. A total of 164 patients were included; 88 had an isolated tibial revision and 76 had revision of both components despite only having a loose tibial component. The demographics and clinical and radiological outcomes were recorded. Results. The patient demographics were statistically similar in the two cohorts. The median follow-up was 3.5 years (interquartile range (IQR) 1 to 12.5). Supplementary femoral metaphyseal fixation was required in five patients in the full revision cohort. There was a higher incidence of radiological tibial loosening in the full component revision cohort at the final follow-up (8 (10.5%) vs 5 (5.7%); p = 0.269). Three patients in the full component revision cohort developed instability while only one in the isolated tibial cohort did. Three patients in the full revision cohort developed a flexion contracture greater than 5° while none in the isolated tibial cohort did. Conclusion. Isolated tibial revision for aseptic tibial loosening has statistically similar clinical and radiological outcomes at a median follow-up of 3.5 years, when compared with full component revision. Substantial bone loss can occur when removing a well-fixed femoral component necessitating a cone or sleeve. Femoral component revision for isolated tibial loosening can frequently be avoided provided adequate ligamentous stability can be obtained. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(6 Supple A):123–128

Aims. To establish our early clinical results of a new total knee arthroplasty (TKA) tibial component introduced in 2013 and compare it to other designs in use at our hospital during the same period. Methods. This is a retrospective study of 166 (154 patients) consecutive cemented, fixed bearing, posterior-stabilized (PS) TKAs (ATTUNE) at one hospital performed by five surgeons. These were compared with a reference cohort of 511 knees (470 patients) of other designs (seven manufacturers) performed at the same hospital by the same surgeons. There were no significant differences in age, sex, BMI, or follow-up times between the two cohorts. The primary outcome was revision performed or pending. Results. In total, 19 (11.5%) ATTUNE study TKAs have been revised at a mean 30.3 months (SD 15), and loosening of the tibial component was seen in 17 of these (90%). Revision is pending in 12 (7%) knees. There was no difference between the 31 knees revised or with revision pending and the remaining 135 study knees in terms of patient characteristics, type of bone cement (p = 0.988), or individual surgeon (p = 0.550). In the reference cohort, there were significantly fewer knees revised (n = 13, 2.6%) and with revision pending (n = 8, 1.5%) (both p < 0.001), and only two had loosening of the tibial component as the reason for revision. Conclusion. This new TKA design had an unexpectedly high early rate of revision compared with our reference cohort of TKAs. Debonding of the tibial component was the most common reason for failure. Additional longer-term follow-up studies of this specific component and techniques for implantation are warranted. The version of the ATTUNE tibial component implanted in this study has undergone modifications by the manufacturer. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(6 Supple A):137–144

Aims. It has been hypothesized that a unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is more likely to be revised than a total knee arthroplasty (TKA) because conversion surgery to a primary TKA is a less complicated procedure. The purpose of this study was to determine if there is a lower threshold for revising a UKA compared with TKA based on Oxford Knee Scores (OKSs) and range of movement (ROM) at the time of revision. Methods. We retrospectively reviewed 619 aseptic revision cases performed between December 1998 and October 2018. This included 138 UKAs that underwent conversion to TKA and 481 initial TKA revisions. Age, body mass index (BMI), time in situ, OKS, and ROM were available for all patients. Results. There were no differences between the two groups based on demographics or time to revision. The top reasons for aseptic TKA revision were loosening in 212 (44%), instability in 88 (18%), and wear in 69 (14%). UKA revision diagnoses were primarily for loosening in 50 (36%), progression of osteoarthritis (OA) in 50 (36%), and wear in 17 (12%). Out of a maximum 48 points, the mean OKS of the UKAs before revision was 23 (SD 9.3), which was significantly higher than the TKAs at 19.2 (SD 9.8; p < 0.001). UKA patients scored statistically better on nine of the 12 individual OKS questions. The UKA cases also had a larger pre-revision mean ROM (114°, SD 14.3°) than TKAs (98°, SD 25°) ; p < 0.001). Conclusion. At revision, the mean UKA OKSs and ROM were significantly better than those of TKA cases. This study suggests that at our institution there is a difference in preoperative OKS between UKA and TKA at the time of revision, demonstrating a revision bias. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(6 Supple A):91–95

Aims. It has previously been shown that higher-volume hospitals have better outcomes following revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA). We were unable to identify any studies which investigated the effect of surgeon volume on the outcome of rTKA. We sought to investigate whether patients of high-volume (HV) rTKA surgeons have better outcomes following this procedure compared with those of low-volume (LV) surgeons. Methods. This retrospective study involved patients who underwent aseptic unilateral rTKA between January 2016 and March 2019, using the database of a large urban academic medical centre. Surgeons who performed ≥ 19 aseptic rTKAs per year during the study period were considered HV and those who performed < 19 per year were considered LV. Demographic characteristics, surgical factors, and postoperative outcomes were compared between the two groups. Results. A total of 308 rTKAs were identified, 132 performed by HV surgeons and 176 by 22 LV surgeons. The LV group had a significantly greater proportion of non-smokers (59.8% vs 49.2%; p = 0.029). For all types of revision, HV surgeons had significantly shorter mean operating times by 17.75 minutes (p = 0.007). For the 169 full revisions (85 HV, 84 LV), HV surgeons had significantly shorter operating times (131.12 (SD 33.78) vs 171.65 (SD 49.88) minutes; p < 0.001), significantly lower re-revision rates (7.1% vs 19.0%; p = 0.023) and significantly fewer re-revisions (0.07 (SD 0.26) vs 0.29 (SD 0.74); p = 0.017). Conclusion. Patients of HV rTKA surgeons have better outcomes following full rTKA. These findings support the development of revision teams within arthroplasty centres of excellence to offer patients the best possible outcomes following rTKA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(6 Supple A):131–136

Aims. To compare rates of serious adverse events in patients undergoing revision knee arthroplasty with consideration of the indication for revision (urgent versus elective indications), and compare these with primary arthroplasty and re-revision arthroplasty. Methods. Patients undergoing primary knee arthroplasty were identified in the national Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) between 1 April 1997 to 31 March 2017. Subsequent revision and re-revision arthroplasty procedures in the same patients and same knee were identified. The primary outcome was 90-day mortality and a logistic regression model was used to investigate factors associated with 90-day mortality and secondary adverse outcomes, including infection (undergoing surgery), pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, and stroke. Urgent indications for revision arthroplasty were defined as infection or fracture, and all other indications (e.g. loosening, instability, wear) were included in the elective indications cohort. Results. A total of 939,021 primary knee arthroplasty procedures were included (939,021 patients), of which 40,854 underwent subsequent revision arthroplasty, and 9,100 underwent re-revision arthroplasty. Revision surgery for elective indications was associated with a 90-day rate of mortality of 0.44% (135/30,826; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.37 to 0.52) which was comparable to primary knee arthroplasty (0.46%; 4,292/939,021; 95% CI 0.44 to 0.47). Revision arthroplasty for infection was associated with a much higher mortality of 2.04% (184/9037; 95% CI 1.75 to 2.35; odds ratio (OR) 3.54; 95% CI 2.81 to 4.46), as was revision for periprosthetic fracture at 5.25% (52/991; 95% CI 3.94 to 6.82; OR 6.23; 95% CI 4.39 to 8.85). Higher rates of pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, and stroke were also observed in the infection and fracture cohort. Conclusion. Patients undergoing revision arthroplasty for urgent indications (infection or fracture) are at higher risk of mortality and serious adverse events in comparison to primary knee arthroplasty and revision arthroplasty for elective indications. These findings will be important for patient consent and shared decision-making and should inform service design for this patient cohort. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(10):1578–1585

Aims. To estimate the measurement properties for the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) in patients undergoing revision knee arthroplasty (responsiveness, minimal detectable change (MDC-90), minimal important change (MIC), minimal important difference (MID), internal consistency, construct validity, and interpretability). Methods. Secondary data analysis was performed for 10,727 patients undergoing revision knee arthroplasty between 2013 to 2019 using a UK national patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) dataset. Outcome data were collected before revision and at six months postoperatively, using the OKS and EuroQol five-dimension score (EQ-5D). Measurement properties were assessed according to COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guidelines. Results. A total of 9,219 patients had complete outcome data. Mean preoperative OKS was 16.7 points (SD 8.1), mean postoperative OKS 29.1 (SD 11.4), and mean change in OKS + 12.5 (SD 10.7). Median preoperative EQ-5D index was 0.260 (interquartile range (IQR) 0.055 to 0.691), median postoperative EQ-5D index 0.691 (IQR 0.516 to 0.796), and median change in EQ-5D index + 0.240 (IQR 0.000 to 0.567). Internal consistency was good with Cronbach’s α 0.88 (baseline) and 0.94 (post-revision). Construct validity found a high correlation of OKS total score with EQ-5D index (r = 0.76 (baseline), r = 0.83 (post-revision), p < 0.001). The OKS was responsive with standardized effect size (SES) 1.54 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.51 to 1.57), compared to SES 0.83 (0.81 to 0.86) for the EQ-5D index. The MIC for the OKS was 7.5 points (95% CI 5.5 to 8.5) based on the optimal cut-off with specificity 0.72, sensitivity 0.60, and area under the curve 0.66. The MID for the OKS was 5.2 points. The MDC-90 was 3.9 points. The OKS did not demonstrate significant floor or ceiling effects. Conclusion. This study found that the OKS was a useful and valid instrument for assessment of outcome following revision knee arthroplasty. The OKS was responsive to change and demonstrated good measurement properties. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(4):627–634

Aims. Antibiotic-loaded bone cements (ALBCs) may offer early protection against the formation of bacterial biofilm after joint arthroplasty. Use in hip arthroplasty is widely accepted, but there is a lack of evidence in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The objective of this study was to evaluate the use of ALBC in a large population of TKA patients. Materials and Methods. Data from the National Joint Registry (NJR) of England and Wales were obtained for all primary cemented TKAs between March 2003 and July 2016. Patient, implant, and surgical variables were analyzed. Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess the influence of ALBC on risk of revision. Body mass index (BMI) data were available in a subset of patients. Results. Of 731 214 TKAs, 15 295 (2.1%) were implanted with plain cement and 715 919 (97.9%) with ALBC. There were 13 391 revisions; 2391 were performed for infection. After adjusting for other variables, ALBC had a significantly lower risk of revision for any cause (hazard ratio (HR) 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77 to 0.93; p < 0.001). ALBC was associated with a lower risk of revision for all aseptic causes (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.95; p < 0.001) and revisions for infection (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.01; p = 0.06). The results were similar when BMI was added into the model, and in a subanalysis where surgeons using only ALBC over the entire study period were excluded. Prosthesis survival at ten years for TKAs implanted with ALBC was 96.3% (95% CI 96.3 to 96.4) compared with 95.5% (95% CI 95.0 to 95.9) in those implanted with plain cement. On a population level, where 100 000 TKAs are performed annually, this difference represents 870 fewer revisions at ten years in the ALBC group. Conclusion. After adjusting for a range of variables, ALBC was associated with a significantly lower risk of revision in this registry-based study of an entire nation of primary cemented knee arthroplasties. Using ALBC does not appear to increase midterm implant failure rates. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:1331–1347

The term mid-flexion instability has entered the orthopaedic literature as a concept, but has not been confirmed as a distinct clinical entity. The term is used freely, sometimes as a synonym for flexion instability. However, the terms need to be clearly separated. A cadaver study published in 1990 associated joint line elevation with decreased stability at many angles of flexion, but that model was not typical of clinical scenarios. The literature is considered and it is proposed that the more common entity of an uncorrected flexion contracture after a measured resection arthroplasty technique is more likely to produce clinical findings that suggest instability mid-flexion.

It is proposed that the clinical scenario encountered is generalised instability, with the appearance of stability in full extension from tight posterior structures.

This paper seeks to clarify whether mid-flexion instability exists as an entity distinct from other commonly recognised forms of instability.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B(1 Suppl A):84–8.

Aims. Varus-valgus constrained (VVC) implants are often used during revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) to gain coronal plane stability. However, the increased mechanical torque applied to the bone-cement interface theoretically increases the risk of aseptic loosening. We assessed mid-term survivorship, complications, and clinical outcomes of a fixed-bearing VVC device in revision TKAs. Methods. A total of 416 consecutive revision TKAs (398 patients) were performed at our institution using a single fixed-bearing VVC TKA from 2007 to 2015. Mean age was 64 years (33 to 88) with 50% male (199). Index revision TKA diagnoses were: instability (n = 122, 29%), aseptic loosening (n = 105, 25%), and prosthetic joint infection (PJI) (n = 97, 23%). All devices were cemented on the epiphyseal surfaces. Femoral stems were used in 97% (n = 402) of cases, tibial stems in 95% (n = 394) of cases; all were cemented. In total, 93% (n = 389) of cases required a stemmed femoral and tibial component. Femoral cones were used in 29%, and tibial cones in 40%. Survivorship was assessed via competing risk analysis; clinical outcomes were determined using Knee Society Scores (KSSs) and range of movement (ROM). Mean follow-up was four years (2 to 10). Results. The five-year cumulative incidence of subsequent revision for aseptic loosening and instability were 2% (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.2 to 3, number at risk = 154) and 4% (95% CI 2 to 6, number at risk = 153), respectively. The five-year cumulative incidence of any subsequent revision was 14% (95% CI 10 to 18, number at risk = 150). Reasons for subsequent revision included PJI (n = 23, of whom 12 had previous PJI), instability (n = 13), and aseptic loosening (n = 11). The use of this implant without stems was found to be a significant risk factor for subsequent revision (hazard ratio (HR) 7.58 (95% CI 3.98 to 16.03); p = 0.007). KSS improved from 46 preoperatively to 81 at latest follow-up (p < 0.001). ROM improved from 96° prerevision to 108° at latest follow-up (p = 0.016). Conclusion. The cumulative incidence of subsequent revision for aseptic loosening and instability was very low at five years with this fixed-bearing VVC implant in revision TKAs. Routine use of cemented and stemmed components with targeted use of metaphyseal cones likely contributed to this low rate of aseptic loosening. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(4):458–462