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.

Pre-operative variables are increasingly being used to determine eligibility for total knee replacement (TKR). This study was undertaken to evaluate the relationships, interactions and predictive capacity of variables available pre- and post-operatively on patient satisfaction following TKR. Using nationally collected patient reported outcome measures and data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales, we identified 22 798 patients who underwent TKR for osteoarthritis between August 2008 and September 2010. The ability of specific covariates to predict satisfaction was assessed using ordinal logistic regression and structural equational modelling. Only 4959 (22%) of 22 278 patients rated the results of their TKR as ‘excellent’, despite the majority (71%, n = 15 882) perceiving their knee symptoms to be much improved. The strongest predictors of satisfaction were post-operative variables. Satisfaction was significantly and positively related to the perception of symptom improvement (operative success) and the post-operative EuroQol-5D score. While also significant within the models pre-operative variables were less important and had a minimal influence upon post-operative satisfaction. The most robust predictions of satisfaction occurred only when both pre- and post-operative variables were considered together. These findings question the appropriateness of restricting access to care based on arbitrary pre-operative thresholds as these factors have little bearing on post-operative satisfaction.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:1359–65.

Current analysis of unicondylar knee replacements (UKRs) by national registries is based on the pooled results of medial and lateral implants. Consequently, little is known about the differential performance of medial and lateral replacements and the influence of each implant type within these pooled analyses. Using data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales (NJR) we aimed to determine the proportion of UKRs implanted on the lateral side of the knee, and their survival and reason for failure compared with medial UKRs. By combining information on the side of operation with component details held on the NJR, we were able to determine implant laterality (medial versus lateral) for 32 847 of the 35 624 unicondylar replacements (92%) registered before December 2010. Of these, 2052 (6%) were inserted on the lateral side of the knee. The rates of survival at five years were 93.1% (95% confidence interval (CI) 92.7 to 93.5) for medial and 93.0% (95% CI 91.1 to 94.9) for lateral UKRs (p = 0.49). The rates of failure remained equivalent after adjusting for patient age, gender, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, indication for surgery and implant design using Cox’s proportional hazards method (hazard ratio for lateral relative to medial replacement = 0.88 (95% CI 0.69 to 1.13); p = 0.32). Aseptic loosening/lysis and unexplained pain were the main reasons for revision in both groups, although the reasons did vary depending on whether a mobile- or a fixed-bearing design was used. At a maximum of eight years the mid-term survival rates of medial and lateral UKRs are similar.

Following arthroplasty of the knee, the patient’s perception of improvement in symptoms is fundamental to the assessment of outcome. Better clinical outcome may offset the inferior survival observed for some types of implant. By examining linked National Joint Registry (NJR) and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) data, we aimed to compare PROMs collected at a minimum of six months post-operatively for total (TKR: n = 23 393) and unicondylar knee replacements (UKR: n = 505). Improvements in knee-specific (Oxford knee score, OKS) and generic (EuroQol, EQ-5D) scores were compared and adjusted for case-mix differences using multiple regression. Whereas the improvements in the OKS and EQ-5D were significantly greater for TKR than for UKR, once adjustments were made for case-mix differences and pre-operative score, the improvements in the two scores were not significantly different. The adjusted mean differences in the improvement of OKS and EQ-5D were 0.0 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.9 to 0.9; p = 0.96) and 0.009 (95% CI -0.034 to 0.015; p = 0.37), respectively.

We found no difference in the improvement of either knee-specific or general health outcomes between TKR and UKR in a large cohort of registry patients. With concerns about significantly higher revision rates for UKR observed in worldwide registries, we question the widespread use of an arthroplasty that does not confer a significant benefit in clinical outcome.

We compared thromboembolic events, major haemorrhage and death after knee replacement in patients receiving either aspirin or low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH). Data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales were linked to an administrative database of hospital admissions in the English National Health Service. A total of 156 798 patients between April 2003 and September 2008 were included and followed for 90 days. Multivariable risk modelling was used to estimate odds ratios adjusted for baseline risk factors (AOR). An AOR < 1 indicates that risk rates are lower with LMWH than with aspirin. In all, 36 159 patients (23.1%) were prescribed aspirin and 120 639 patients (76.9%) were prescribed LMWH. We found no statistically significant differences between the aspirin and LMWH groups in the rate of pulmonary embolism (0.49% vs 0.45%, AOR 0.88 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 1.05); p = 0.16), 90-day mortality (0.39% vs 0.45%, AOR 1.13 (95% CI 0.94 to 1.37); p = 0.19) or major haemorrhage (0.37% vs 0.39%, AOR 1.01 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.22); p = 0.94). There was a significantly greater likelihood of needing to return to theatre in the aspirin group (0.26% vs 0.19%, AOR 0.73 (95% CI 0.58 to 0.94); p = 0.01). Between patients receiving LMWH or aspirin there was only a small difference in the risk of pulmonary embolism, 90-day mortality and major haemorrhage.

These results should be considered when the existing guidelines for thromboprophylaxis after knee replacement are reviewed.