Aims. Obtaining solid implant fixation is crucial in revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) to avoid aseptic loosening, a major reason for re-revision. This study aims to validate a novel grading system that quantifies implant fixation across three anatomical zones (epiphysis, metaphysis, diaphysis). Methods. Based on pre-, intra-, and postoperative assessments, the novel grading system allocates a quantitative score (0, 0.5, or 1 point) for the quality of fixation achieved in each anatomical zone. The criteria used by the algorithm to assign the score include the bone quality, the size of the bone defect, and the type of fixation used. A consecutive cohort of 245 patients undergoing rTKA from 2012 to 2018 were evaluated using the current novel scoring system and followed prospectively. In addition, 100 first-time revision cases were assessed radiologically from the original cohort and graded by three observers to evaluate the intra- and inter-rater reliability of the novel radiological grading system. Results. At a mean follow-up of 90 months (64 to 130), only two out of 245 cases failed due to aseptic loosening. Intraoperative grading yielded mean scores of 1.87 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.82 to 1.92) for the femur and 1.96 (95% CI 1.92 to 2.0) for the tibia. Only 3.7% of femoral and 1.7% of tibial reconstructions fell below the 1.5-point threshold, which included the two cases of aseptic loosening. Interobserver reliability for postoperative radiological grading was 0.97 for the femur and 0.85 for the tibia. Conclusion. A minimum score of 1.5 points for each skeletal segment appears to be a reasonable cut-off to define sufficient fixation in rTKA. There were no revisions for aseptic loosening at mid-term follow-up when this fixation threshold was achieved or exceeded. When assessing first-time revisions, this novel grading system has shown excellent intra- and interobserver reliability. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(5):468–474

Aims. Revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) and revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) are complex procedures with higher rates of re-revision, complications, and mortality compared to primary TKA and THA. We report the effects of the establishment of a revision arthroplasty network (the East Midlands Specialist Orthopaedic Network; EMSON) on outcomes of rTKA and rTHA. Methods. The revision arthroplasty network was established in January 2015 and covered five hospitals in the Nottinghamshire and Lincolnshire areas of the East Midlands of England. This comprises a collaborative weekly multidisciplinary meeting where upcoming rTKA and rTHA procedures are discussed, and a plan agreed. Using the Hospital Episode Statistics database, revision procedures carried out between April 2011 and March 2018 (allowing two-year follow-up) from the five network hospitals were compared to all other hospitals in England. Age, sex, and mean Hospital Frailty Risk scores were used as covariates. The primary outcome was re-revision surgery within one year of the index revision. Secondary outcomes were re-revision surgery within two years, any complication within one and two years, and median length of hospital stay. Results. A total of 57,621 rTHA and 33,828 rTKA procedures were performed across England, of which 1,485 (2.6%) and 1,028 (3.0%), respectively, were conducted within the network. Re-revision rates within one year for rTHA were 7.3% and 6.0%, and for rTKA were 11.6% and 7.4% pre- and postintervention, respectively, within the network. This compares to a pre-to-post change from 7.4% to 6.8% for rTHA and from 11.7% to 9.7% for rTKA for the rest of England. In comparative interrupted time-series analysis for rTKA there was a significant immediate improvement in one-year re-revision rates for the revision network compared to the rest of England (p = 0.024), but no significant change for rTHA (p = 0.504). For the secondary outcomes studied, there was a significant improvement in trend for one- and two-year complication rates for rTHA for the revision network compared to the rest of England. Conclusion. Re-revision rates for rTKA and complication rates for rTHA improved significantly at one and two years with the introduction of a revision arthroplasty network, when compared to the rest of England. Most of the outcomes studied improved to a greater extent in the network hospitals compared to the rest of England when comparing the pre- and postintervention periods. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(6):641–648

Aims. Tibial tubercle osteotomy (TTO) facilitates surgical exposure and protects the extensor mechanism during revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA). The purpose of this study was to determine the rates of bony union, complications, and reoperations following TTO during rTKA, to assess the functional outcomes of rTKA with TTO at two years’ minimum follow-up, and to identify the risk factors of failure. Methods. Between January 2010 and September 2020, 695 rTKAs were performed and data were entered into a prospective database. Inclusion criteria were rTKAs with concomitant TTO, without extensor mechanism allograft, and a minimum of two years’ follow-up. A total of 135 rTKAs were included, with a mean age of 65 years (SD 9.0) and a mean BMI of 29.8 kg/m. 2. (SD 5.7). The most frequent indications for revision were infection (50%; 68/135), aseptic loosening (25%; 34/135), and stiffness (13%; 18/135). Patients had standardized follow-up at six weeks, three months, six months, and annually thereafter. Complications and revisions were evaluated at the last follow-up. Functional outcomes were assessed using the Knee Society Score (KSS) and range of motion. Results. The mean follow-up was 51 months (SD 26; 24 to 121). Bony union was confirmed in 95% of patients (128/135) at a mean of 3.4 months (SD 2.7). The complication rate was 15% (20/135), consisting of nine tibial tubercle fracture displacements (6.7%), seven nonunions (5%), two delayed unions, one tibial fracture, and one wound dehiscence. Seven patients (5%) required eight revision procedures (6%): three bone grafts, three osteosyntheses, one extensor mechanism allograft, and one wound revision. The functional scores and flexion were significantly improved after surgery: mean KSS knee, 48.8 (SD 17) vs 79.6 (SD 20; p < 0.001); mean KSS function, 37.6 (SD 21) vs 70.2 (SD 30; p < 0.001); mean flexion, 81.5° (SD 33°) vs 93° (SD 29°; p = 0.004). Overall, 98% of patients (n = 132) had no extension deficit. The use of hinge implants was a significant risk factor for tibial tubercle fracture (p = 0.011). Conclusion. TTO during rTKA was an efficient procedure to improve knee exposure with a high union rate, but had significant specific complications. Functional outcomes were improved at mid term. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(10):1078–1085

Aims. Both the femoral and tibial component are usually cemented at revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA), while stems can be added with either cemented or press-fit (hybrid) fixation. The aim of this study was to compare the long-term stability of rTKA with cemented and press-fitted stems, using radiostereometric analysis (RSA). Methods. This is a follow-up of a randomized controlled trial, initially involving 32 patients, of whom 19 (nine cemented, ten hybrid) were available for follow-up ten years postoperatively, when further RSA measurements were made. Micromotion of the femoral and tibial components was assessed using model-based RSA software (RSAcore). The clinical outcome was evaluated using the Knee Society Score (KSS), the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), and visual analogue scale (pain and satisfaction). Results. The median total femoral translation and rotation at ten years were 0.39 mm (interquartile range (IQR) 0.20 to 0.54) and 0.59° (IQR 0.46° to 0.73°) for the cemented group and 0.70 mm (IQR 0.15 to 0.77) and 0.78° (IQR 0.47° to 1.43°) for the hybrid group. For the tibial components this was 0.38 mm (IQR 0.33 to 0.85) and 0.98° (IQR 0.38° to 1.34°) for the cemented group and 0.42 mm (IQR 0.30 to 0.52) and 0.72° (IQR 0.62° to 0.82°) for the hybrid group. None of these values were significantly different between the two groups and there were no significant differences between the clinical scores in the two groups at this time. There was only one re-revision, in the hybrid group, for infection and not for aseptic loosening. Conclusion. These results show good long-term fixation with no difference in micromotion and clinical outcome between fully cemented and hybrid fixation in rTKA, which builds on earlier short- to mid-term results. The patients all had type I or II osseous defects, which may in part explain the good results. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(7):875–883

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. The aim of this study was to measure the effect of hospital case volume on the survival of revision total knee arthroplasty (RTKA). Methods. This is a retrospective analysis of Scottish Arthroplasty Project data, a nationwide audit which prospectively collects data on all arthroplasty procedures performed in Scotland. The primary outcome was RTKA survival at ten years. The primary explanatory variable was the effect of hospital case volume per year on RTKA survival. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were plotted with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to determine the lifespan of RTKA. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards were used to estimate relative revision risks over time. Hazard ratios (HRs) were reported with 95% CI, and p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results. From 1998 to 2019, 8,301 patients (8,894 knees) underwent RTKA surgery in Scotland (median age at RTKA 70 years (interquartile range (IQR) 63 to 76); median follow-up 6.2 years (IQR 3.0 to 10.2). In all, 4,764 (53.6%) were female, and 781 (8.8%) were treated for infection. Of these 8,894 knees, 957 (10.8%) underwent a second revision procedure. Male sex, younger age at index revision, and positive infection status were associated with need for re-revision. The ten-year survival estimate for RTKA was 87.3% (95% CI 86.5 to 88.1). Adjusting for sex, age, surgeon volume, and indication for revision, high hospital case volume was significantly associated with lower risk of re-revision (HR 0.78 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.94, p < 0.001)). The risk of re-revision steadily declined in centres performing > 20 cases per year; risk reduction was 16% with > 20 cases; 22% with > 30 cases; and 28% with > 40 cases. The lowest level of risk was associated with the highest volume centres. Conclusion. The majority of RTKA in Scotland survive up to ten years. Increasing yearly hospital case volume above 20 cases is independently associated with a significant risk reduction of re-revision. Development of high-volume tertiary centres may lead to an improvement in the overall survival of RTKA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(4):602–609

Aims. Enhanced perioperative protocols have significantly improved patient recovery following primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Little has been investigated the effectiveness of these protocols for revision TKA (RTKA). We report on a matched group of aseptic revision and primary TKA patients treated with an identical pain and rehabilitation programmes. Methods. Overall, 40 aseptic full-component RTKA patients were matched (surgical date, age, sex, and body mass index (BMI)) to a group of primary cemented TKA patients. All RTKAs had new uncemented stemmed femoral and tibial components with metaphyseal sleeves. Both groups were treated with an identical postoperative pain protocol. Patients were followed for at least two years. Knee Society Scores (KSS) at six weeks and at final follow-up were recorded for both groups. Results. There was no difference in mean length of stay between the primary TKA (1.2 days (0.83 to 2.08)) and RTKA patients (1.4 days (0.91 to 2.08). Mean oral morphine milligram (mg) equivalent dosing (MED) during the hospitalization was 42 mg/day for the primary TKA and 38 mg/day for the RTKA groups. There were two readmissions: gastrointestinal disturbance (RTKA) and urinary retention (primary TKA). There no were reoperations, wound problems, thromboembolic events or manipulations in either group. Mean overall KSS for the RTKA group was 87.3 (45 to 99) at six-week follow-up and 89.1 (52 to 100) at final follow-up (mean 3.9 years, (3.9 to 9.0)). Mean overall KSS for the primary group was 89.9 (71 to 100) at six-week follow-up and 93.42 (73 to 100) at final follow-up (mean 3.5 years (2.5 to 9.2)). Conclusion. An identical pain and rehabilitation protocol used for primary TKA patients can enable certain full-component aseptic RTKA patients to have a similar early functional outcome. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(6 Supple A):96–100

Aims. The aim of this study was to establish the results of isolated exchange of the tibial polyethylene insert in revision total knee arthroplasty (RTKA) in patients with well-fixed femoral or tibial components. We report on a series of RTKAs where only the polyethylene was replaced, and the patients were followed for a mean of 13.2 years (10.0 to 19.1). Patients and Methods. Our study group consisted of 64 non-infected, grossly stable TKA patients revised over an eight-year period (1998 to 2006). The mean age of the patients at time of revision was 72.2 years (48 to 88). There were 36 females (56%) and 28 males (44%) in the cohort. All patients had received the same cemented, cruciate-retaining patella resurfaced primary TKA. All subsequently underwent an isolated polyethylene insert exchange. The mean time from the primary TKA to RTKA was 9.1 years (2.2 to 16.1). Results. At final follow-up, 13 patients had died, leaving 51 patients for study. Only seven of these patients had required re-operation. Knee Society scores (KSS) prior to RTKA were a mean of 78.4 (24 to 100). By six weeks post-revision, the mean total KSS was 93.5 (38 to 100) and at final follow-up, they had a mean of 91.6 (36 to 100). Conclusion. In appropriate circumstances, where the femoral and tibial components are satisfactorily aligned and well fixed, and where the soft tissues can be balanced, a polyethylene exchange alone can provide a durable solution for these RTKA patients. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B(7 Supple C):104–107

Aims. Single-stage revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) is gaining popularity in treating chronic periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs). We have introduced this approach to our clinical practice and sought to evaluate rates of reinfection and re-revision, along with predictors of failure of both single- and two-stage rTKA for chronic PJI. Methods. A retrospective comparative cohort study of all rTKAs for chronic PJI between 1 April 2003 and 31 December 2018 was undertaken using prospective databases. Patients with acute infections were excluded; rTKAs were classified as single-stage, stage 1, or stage 2 of two-stage revision. The primary outcome measure was failure to eradicate or recurrent infection. Variables evaluated for failure by regression analysis included age, BMI, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, infecting organisms, and the presence of a sinus. Patient survivorship was also compared between the groups. Results. A total of 292 consecutive first-time rTKAs for chronic PJI were included: 82 single-stage (28.1%); and 210 two-stage (71.9%) revisions. The mean age was 71 years (27 to 90), with 165 females (57.4%), and a mean BMI of 30.9 kg/m. 2. (20 to 53). Significantly more patients with a known infecting organism were in the single-stage group (93.9% vs 80.47%; p = 0.004). The infecting organism was identified preoperatively in 246 cases (84.2%). At a mean follow-up of 6.3 years (2.0 to 17.6), the failure rate was 6.1% in the single-stage, and 12% in the two-stage groups. All failures occurred within four years of treatment. The presence of a sinus was an independent risk factor for failure (odds ratio (OR) 4.97; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.593 to 15.505; p = 0.006), as well as age > 80 years (OR 5.962; 95% CI 1.156 to 30.73; p = 0.033). The ten-year patient survivorship rate was 72% in the single-stage group compared with 70.5% in the two-stage group. This difference was not significant (p = 0.517). Conclusion. Single-stage rTKA is an effective strategy with a high success rate comparable to two-stage approach in appropriately selected patients. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(8):1373–1379

Aims. Porous metaphyseal cones can be used for fixation in revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) and complex TKAs. This metaphyseal fixation has led to some surgeons using shorter cemented stems instead of diaphyseal engaging cementless stems with a potential benefit of ease of obtaining proper alignment without being beholden to the diaphysis. The purpose of this study was to evaluate short term clinical and radiographic outcomes of a series of TKA cases performed using 3D-printed metaphyseal cones. Methods. A retrospective review of 86 rTKAs and nine complex primary TKAs, with an average age of 63.2 years (SD 8.2) and BMI of 34.0 kg/m. 2. (SD 8.7), in which metaphyseal cones were used for both femoral and tibial fixation were compared for their knee alignment based on the type of stem used. Overall, 22 knees had cementless stems on both sides, 52 had cemented stems on both sides, and 15 had mixed stems. Postoperative long-standing radiographs were evaluated for coronal and sagittal plane alignment. Adjusted logistic regression models were run to assess malalignment hip-knee-ankle (HKA) alignment beyond ± 3° and sagittal alignment of the tibial and femoral components ± 3° by stem type. Results. No patients had a revision of a cone due to aseptic loosening; however, two had revision surgery due to infection. In all, 26 (27%) patients had HKA malalignment; nine (9.5%) patients had sagittal plane malalignment, five (5.6%) of the tibia, and four (10.8%) of the femur. After adjusting for age, sex, and BMI, there was a significantly increased risk for malalignment when a cone was used and both the femur and tibia had cementless compared to cemented stems (odds ratio 3.19, 95% confidence interval 1.01 to 10.05). Conclusion. Porous 3D-printed cones provide excellent metaphyseal fixation. However, these central cones make the use of offset couplers difficult and may generate malalignment with cementless stems. We found 3.19-times higher odds of malalignment in our TKAs performed with metaphyseal cones and both femoral and tibial cementless stems. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(6 Supple A):150–157

Aims. Revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) accounts for approximately 5% to 10% of all TKAs. Although the complexity of these procedures is well recognized, few investigators have evaluated the cost and value-added with the implementation of a dedicated revision arthroplasty service. The aim of the present study is to compare and contrast surgeon productivity in several differing models of activity. Materials and Methods. All patients that underwent primary or revision TKA from January 2016 to June 2018 were included as the primary source of data. All rTKA patients were categorized by the number of components revised (e.g. liner exchange, two or more components). Three models were used to assess the potential surgical productivity of a dedicated rTKA service : 1) work relative value unit (RVU) versus mean surgical time; 2) primary TKA with a single operating theatre (OT) versus rTKA with a single OT; and 3) primary TKA with two OTs versus rTKA with a single OT. Results. In total, 4570 procedures were performed: 4128 primary TKAs, 51 TKA liner exchanges, and 391 full rTKAs. Surgical time was significantly different between the primary TKA, liner exchange, and rTKA cohorts (100.6, 97.1, and 141.7 minutes, respectively; p < 0.001). Primary TKA yielded a mean of 7.1% more RVU/min per procedure than rTKA. Our one-OT model demonstrated that primary TKA (n = 4) had a 1.9% RVU/day advantage over rTKA (n = 3). If two OTs are used for primary TKA (n = 6), the outcome strongly favours primary TKA by an added 34.6% RVUs/day. Conclusion. Our results suggest that a dedicated rTKA service would lead to lower surgeon remuneration based on the current RVU paradigm. Revision arthroplasty specialists may need additional or alternative incentives to promote the development of a dedicated revision service. Through such an approach, healthcare organizations could enhance the quality of care provided, but surgeon productivity measures would need to be adjusted to reflect the burden of these cases. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:675–681

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.