Meniscal allograft transplantation (MAT) for patients with symptomatic meniscal loss has demonstrated good clinical results and survivorship. Factors that affect both functional outcome and survivorship have been reported in the literature. These are typically single-centre case series with relatively small numbers and conflicting results. Our aim was to describe an international, two-centre case series, and identify factors that affect both functional outcome and survival. We report factors that affect outcome on 526 patients undergoing MAT across two sites (one in the UK and one in Italy). Outcomes of interest were the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score four (KOOS4) at two years and failure rates. We performed multiple regression analysis to examine for factors affecting KOOS, and Cox proportional hazards models for survivorship.Aims
Methods
Meniscal allograft transplantation is undertaken to improve pain
and function in patients with a symptomatic meniscal deficient knee
compartment. While case series have shown improvements in patient
reported outcome measures (PROMs), its efficacy has not been rigorously
evaluated. This study aimed to compare PROMs in patients having
meniscal transplantation with those having personalized physiotherapy
at 12 months. A single-centre assessor-blinded, comprehensive cohort study,
incorporating a pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) was performed
on patients with a symptomatic compartment of the knee in which
a (sub)total meniscectomy had previously been performed. They were
randomized to be treated either with a meniscal allograft transplantation
or personalized physiotherapy, and stratified for malalignment of
the limb. They entered the preference groups if they were not willing
to be randomized. The Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS),
International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score and Lysholm
score and complications were collected at baseline and at four,
eight and 12 months following the interventions.Aims
Patients and Methods
The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of a femoral
nerve block and a periarticular infiltration in the management of
early post-operative pain after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). A pragmatic, single centre, two arm parallel group, patient blinded,
randomised controlled trial was undertaken. All patients due for
TKA were eligible. Exclusion criteria included contraindications
to the medications involved in the study and patients with a neurological
abnormality of the lower limb. Patients received either a femoral
nerve block with 75 mg of 0.25% levobupivacaine hydrochloride around
the nerve, or periarticular infiltration with 150 mg of 0.25% levobupivacaine
hydrochloride, 10 mg morphine sulphate, 30 mg ketorolac trometamol
and 0.25 mg of adrenaline all diluted with 0.9% saline to make a
volume of 150 ml.Aims
Patients and Methods
We have studied the concept of posterior condylar offset and the importance of its restoration on the maximum range of knee flexion after posterior-cruciate-ligament-retaining total knee replacement (TKR). We measured the difference in the posterior condylar offset before and one year after operation in 69 patients who had undergone a primary cruciate-sacrificing mobile bearing TKR by one surgeon using the same implant and a standardised operating technique. In all the patients true pre- and post-operative lateral radiographs had been taken. The mean pre- and post-operative posterior condylar offset was 25.9 mm (21 to 35) and 26.9 mm (21 to 34), respectively. The mean difference in posterior condylar offset was + 1 mm (−6 to +5). The mean pre-operative knee flexion was 111° (62° to 146°) and at one year postoperatively, it was 107° (51° to 137°). There was no statistical correlation between the change in knee flexion and the difference in the posterior condylar offset after TKR (Pearson correlation coefficient r = −0.06, p = 0.69).
Early implants for total knee replacement were fixed to bone with cement. No firm scientific reason has been given for the introduction of cementless knee replacement and the long-term survivorship of such implants has not shown any advantage over cemented forms. In a randomised, prospective study we have compared cemented and uncemented total knee replacement and report the results of 139 prostheses at five years. Outcome was assessed both clinically by independent examination using the Nottingham knee score and radiologically using the Knee Society scoring system. Independent statistical analysis of the data showed no significant difference between cemented and cementless fixation for pain, mobility or movement. There was no difference in the radiological alignment at five years, but there was a notable disparity in the radiolucent line score. With cemented fixation there was a significantly greater number of radiolucent lines on anteroposterior radiographs of the tibia and lateral radiographs of the femur. At five years, our clinical results would not support the use of the more expensive cementless fixation whereas the radiological results are of unknown significance. Longer follow-up will determine any changes in the results and conclusions.
