Aims. Metal allergy in knee arthroplasty patients is a controversial topic. We aimed to conduct a scoping review to clarify the management of metal allergy in primary and revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Methods. Studies were identified by searching electronic databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid MEDLINE, and Embase, from their inception to November 2020, for studies evaluating TKA patients with metal hypersensitivity/allergy. All studies reporting on diagnosing or managing metal hypersensitivity in TKA were included. Data were extracted and summarized based on study design, study population, interventions and outcomes. A practical guide is then formulated based on the available evidence. Results. We included 38 heterogeneous studies (two randomized controlled trials, six comparative studies, 19 case series, and 11 case reports). The evidence indicates that metal hypersensitivity is a rare complication with some histopathological features leading to pain and dissatisfaction with no reliable screening tests preoperatively. Hypoallergenic implants are viable alternatives for patients with self-reported/confirmed metal hypersensitivity if declared preoperatively; however, concerns remain over their long-term outcomes with ceramic implants outperforming titanium nitride-coated implants and informed consent is paramount. For patients presenting with painful TKA, metal hypersensitivity is a diagnosis of exclusion where patch skin testing, lymphocyte transformation test, and synovial biopsies are useful adjuncts before revision surgery is undertaken to hypoallergenic implants with shared decision-making and informed consent. Conclusion. Using the limited available evidence in the literature, we provide a practical approach to metal hypersensitivity in TKA patients. Future national/registry-based studies are needed to identify the scale of metal hypersensitivity, agreed diagnostic criteria, and management strategies. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(10):785–795

Aims. Return to sport following undergoing total (TKA) and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) has been researched with meta-analyses and systematic reviews of varying quality. The aim of this study is to create an umbrella review to consolidate the data into consensus guidelines for returning to sports following TKA and UKA. Methods. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses written between 2010 and 2020 were systematically searched. Studies were independently screened by two reviewers and methodology quality was assessed. Variables for analysis included objective classification of which sports are safe to participate in postoperatively, time to return to sport, prognostic indicators of returning, and reasons patients do not. Results. A total of 410 articles were found, including 58 duplicates. Seven articles meeting inclusion criteria reported that 34% to 100% of patients who underwent TKA or UKA were able to return to sports at 13 weeks and 12 weeks respectively, with UKA patients more likely to do so. Prior experience with the sport was the most significant prognostic indicator for return. These patients were likely to participate in low-impact sports, particularly walking, cycling, golf, and swimming. Moderate-impact sport participation, such as doubles tennis and skiing, may be considered on a case-by-case basis considering the patient’s prior experience. There is insufficient long-term data on the risks to return to high-impact sport, such as decreased implant survivorship. Conclusion. There is a consensus that patients can return to low-impact sports following TKA or UKA. Return to moderate-impact sport was dependent on a case-by-case basis, with emphasis on the patient’s prior experience in the sport. Return to high-impact sports was not supported. Patients undergoing UKA return to sport one week sooner and with more success than TKA. Future studies are needed to assess long-term outcomes following return to high-impact sports to establish evidence-based recommendations. This review summarizes all available data for the most up-to-date and evidence-based guidelines for returning to sport following TKA and UKA to replace guidelines based on subjective physician survey data. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(3):245–251

Aims. The aim of this meta-analysis is to assess the association between exchange of modular parts in debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR) procedure and outcomes for hip and knee periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). Methods. We conducted a systematic search on PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane library from inception until May 2021. Random effects meta-analyses and meta-regression was used to estimate, on a study level, the success rate of DAIR related to component exchange. Risk of bias was appraised using the (AQUILA) checklist. Results. We included 65 studies comprising 6,630 patients. The pooled overall success after DAIR for PJI was 67% (95% confidence interval (CI) 63% to 70%). This was 70% (95% CI 65% to 75%) for DAIR for hip PJI and 63% (95% CI 58% to 69%) for knee PJI. In studies before 2004 (n = 27), our meta-regression analysis showed a 3.5% increase in success rates for each 10% increase in component exchange in DAIR for hip PJI and a 3.1% increase for each 10% increase in component exchange for knee PJI. When restricted to studies after 2004 (n = 37), this association changed: for DAIR for hip PJI a decrease in successful outcome by 0.5% for each 10% increase in component exchange and for DAIR for knee PJI this was a 0.01% increase in successful outcome for each 10% increase in component exchange. Conclusion. This systematic review and meta-regression found no benefit of modular component exchange on reduction of PJI failure. This limited effect should be weighed against the risks for the patient and cost on a case-by-case basis. The association between exchange of modular components and outcome changed before and after 2004. This suggests the effect seen after 2004 may reflect a more rigorous, evidence-based, approach to the infected implant compared to the years before. Level of Evidence: Level III. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(10):806–812

Aims

Robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (R-UKA) has been proposed as an approach to improve the results of the conventional manual UKA (C-UKA). The aim of this meta-analysis was to analyze the studies comparing R-UKA and C-UKA in terms of clinical outcomes, radiological results, operating time, complications, and revisions.

Aims

The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and bias evaluation of the current literature to create an overview of risk factors for re-revision following revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA).

Aims

Revision rates for ankle arthroplasties are higher than hip or knee arthroplasties. When a total ankle arthroplasty (TAA) fails, it can either undergo revision to another ankle replacement, revision of the TAA to ankle arthrodesis (fusion), or amputation. Currently there is a paucity of literature on the outcomes of these revisions. The aim of this meta-analysis is to assess the outcomes of revision TAA with respect to surgery type, functional outcomes, and reoperations.

Aims

This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to compare open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with primary arthrodesis (PA) in the treatment of Lisfranc injuries, regarding patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and risk of secondary surgery. The aim was to conclusively determine the best available treatment based on the most complete and recent evidence available.

Aims

It is important to understand the rate of complications associated with the increasing burden of revision shoulder arthroplasty. Currently, this has not been well quantified. This review aims to address that deficiency with a focus on complication and reoperation rates, shoulder outcome scores, and comparison of anatomical and reverse prostheses when used in revision surgery.

Aims

The follow-up interval of a study represents an important aspect that is frequently mentioned in the title of the manuscript. Authors arbitrarily define whether the follow-up of their study is short-, mid-, or long-term. There is no clear consensus in that regard and definitions show a large range of variation. It was therefore the aim of this study to systematically identify clinical research published in high-impact orthopaedic journals in the last five years and extract follow-up information to deduce corresponding evidence-based definitions of short-, mid-, and long-term follow-up.