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). Methods. A systematic search of MEDLINE and Embase was completed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The studies were required to include a population of index rTKAs. Primary or secondary outcomes had to be re-revision. The association between preoperative factors and the effect on the risk for re-revision was also required to be reported by the studies. Results. The search yielded 4,847 studies, of which 15 were included. A majority of the studies were retrospective cohorts or registry studies. In total, 26 significant risk factors for re-revision were identified. Of these, the following risk factors were consistent across multiple studies: age at the time of index revision, male sex, index revision being partial revision, and index revision due to infection. Modifiable risk factors were opioid use, BMI > 40 kg/m. 2. , and anaemia. History of one-stage revision due to infection was associated with the highest risk of re-revision. Conclusion. Overall, 26 risk factors have been associated with an increased risk of re-revision following rTKA. However, various levels of methodological bias were found in the studies. Future studies should ensure valid comparisons by including patients with identical indications and using clear definitions for accurate assessments. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(8):644–651

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