Aims. Implant failure has become more common as the number of primary total ankle arthroplasties (TAAs) performed has increased. Although revision arthroplasty has gained attention for functional preservation, the long-term results remain unclear. This study aimed to assess the long-term outcomes of revision TAA using a mobile-bearing prosthesis in a considerably large cohort; the risk factors for failure were also determined. Methods. This single-centre retrospective cohort study included 116 patients (117 ankles) who underwent revision TAA for failed primary TAA between July 2000 and March 2010. Survival analysis and risk factor assessment were performed, and clinical performance and patient satisfaction were evaluated preoperatively and at last follow-up. Results. The mean duration from initial revision TAA to last follow-up was 15.0 years (SD 3.0; 11.2 to 20.5). The cumulative survival rates of the revised ankles were 81% (95% confidence interval (CI) 74% to 88%), 74% (65% to 82%), and 70% (61% to 79%) at five, ten, and 15 years, respectively. Comorbidities prior to primary TAA, aseptic loosening, instability, or grafting of cysts were found to be the most common risk factors for secondary revision. The median value for preoperative pain, as assessed using the visual analogue scale, declined from 6 (interquartile range (IQR) 5 to 8) to 2 (IQR 0 to 5) (p < 0.001) and the mean American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society ankle-hindfoot score improved from 43 (SD 17) preoperatively to 70 (SD 20) (p < 0.001) at last follow-up. Conclusion. Revision TAA offers acceptable survival rates after 15 years; it therefore offers a valuable option for treatment of implant failure in carefully selected cases. Although patient-reported outcomes improve substantially, the degree of improvement reported following primary TAA is not achieved. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(1):46–52

Aims

Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is the preferred treatment for anterior medial knee osteoarthritis (OA) owing to the rapid postoperative recovery. However, the risk factors for UKA failure remain controversial.

The April 2023 Foot & Ankle Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Outcomes following a two-stage revision total ankle arthroplasty for periprosthetic joint infection; Temporary bridge plate fixation and joint motion after an unstable Lisfranc injury; Outcomes of fusion in type II os naviculare; Total ankle arthroplasty versus arthrodesis for end-stage ankle osteoarthritis; Normal saline for plantar fasciitis: placebo or therapeutic?; Distraction arthroplasty for ankle osteoarthritis: does it work?; Let there be movement: ankle arthroplasty after previous fusion; Morbidity and mortality after diabetic Charcot foot arthropathy.

Aims

The aim of this study was to evaluate medium-term outcomes and complications of the S-ROM NOILES Rotating Hinge Knee System (DePuy, USA) in revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) at a tertiary unit.

Aims

We report the medium-term outcomes of a consecutive series of 118 Zenith total ankle arthroplasties (TAAs) from a single, non-designer centre.

Aims

This study aims to determine the proportion of patients with end-stage knee osteoarthritis (OA) possibly suitable for partial (PKA) or combined partial knee arthroplasty (CPKA) according to patterns of full-thickness cartilage loss and anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) status.

Aims

Commonly performed unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is not designed for the lateral compartment. Additionally, the anatomical medial and lateral tibial plateaus have asymmetrical geometries, with a slightly dished medial plateau and a convex lateral plateau. Therefore, this study aims to investigate the native knee kinematics with respect to the tibial insert design corresponding to the lateral femoral component.

Aims

The primary aim of this study was to determine the surgical team’s learning curve for introducing robotic-arm assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) into routine surgical practice. The secondary objective was to compare accuracy of implant positioning in conventional jig-based UKA versus robotic-arm assisted UKA.

Objectives

This study reports on a secondary exploratory analysis of the early clinical outcomes of a randomised clinical trial comparing robotic arm-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) for medial compartment osteoarthritis of the knee with manual UKA performed using traditional surgical jigs. This follows reporting of the primary outcomes of implant accuracy and gait analysis that showed significant advantages in the robotic arm-assisted group.

The February 2015 Foot & Ankle Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Syndesmosis screw removal in randomised controlled trial; Diagnostic value of Hawkins sign; Chevron rules supreme?; Diabetes and ankle replacement; Fixed-bearing ankle replacement; Fusion for osteomyelitis of the ankle; ‘Reformed’ fallers.

Objectives

This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to determine the mid- to long-term clinical outcomes for a medial-pivot total knee replacement (TKR) system. The objectives were to synthesise available survivorship, Knee Society Scores (KSS), and reasons for revision for this system.

There is conflicting evidence about the merits of mobile bearings in total knee replacement, partly because most randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have not been adequately powered. We report the results of a multicentre RCT of mobile versus fixed bearings. This was part of the knee arthroplasty trial (KAT), where 539 patients were randomly allocated to mobile or fixed bearings and analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. The primary outcome measure was the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) plus secondary measures including Short Form-12, EuroQol EQ-5D, costs, cost-effectiveness and need for further surgery.

There was no significant difference between the groups pre-operatively: mean OKS was 17.18 (sd 7.60) in the mobile-bearing group and 16.49 (sd 7.40) in the fixed-bearing group. At five years mean OKS was 33.19 (sd 16.68) and 33.65 (sd 9.68), respectively. There was no significant difference between trial groups in OKS at five years (-1.12 (95% confidence interval -2.77 to 0.52) or any of the other outcome measures. Furthermore, there was no significant difference in the proportion of patients with knee-related re-operations or in total costs.

In this appropriately powered RCT, over the first five years after total knee replacement functional outcomes, re-operation rates and healthcare costs appear to be the same irrespective of whether a mobile or fixed bearing is used.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:486–92.

This study compared the outcome of total knee replacement (TKR) in adult patients with fixed- and mobile-bearing prostheses during the first post-operative year and at five years’ follow-up, using gait parameters as a new objective measure. This double-blind randomised controlled clinical trial included 55 patients with mobile-bearing (n = 26) and fixed-bearing (n = 29) prostheses of the same design, evaluated pre-operatively and post-operatively at six weeks, three months, six months, one year and five years. Each participant undertook two walking trials of 30 m and completed the EuroQol questionnaire, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index, Knee Society score, and visual analogue scales for pain and stiffness. Gait analysis was performed using five miniature angular rate sensors mounted on the trunk (sacrum), each thigh and calf. The study population was divided into two groups according to age (≤ 70 years versus > 70 years).

Improvements in most gait parameters at five years’ follow-up were greater for fixed-bearing TKRs in older patients (> 70 years), and greater for mobile-bearing TKRs in younger patients (≤ 70 years). These findings should be confirmed by an extended age controlled study, as the ideal choice of prosthesis might depend on the age of the patient at the time of surgery.

The efficacy of circumpatellar electrocautery in reducing the incidence of post-operative anterior knee pain is unknown. We conducted a single-centre, outcome-assessor and patient-blinded, parallel-group, randomised, controlled trial to compare circumpatellar electrocautery with no electrocautery in total knee replacement in the absence of patellar resurfacing. Patients requiring knee replacement for primary osteoarthritis were randomly assigned circumpatellar electrocautery (intervention group) or no electrocautery (control group). The primary outcome measure was the incidence of anterior knee pain. A secondary measure was the standardised clinical and patient-reported outcomes determined by the American Knee Society scores and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) osteoarthritis index. A total of 131 knees received circumpatellar electrocautery and 131 had no electrocautery.

The overall incidence of anterior knee pain at follow-up at one year was 26% (20% to 31%), with 19% (12% to 26%) in the intervention group and 32% (24% to 40%) in the control group (p = 0.02). The relative risk reduction from electrocautery was 40% (9% to 61%) and the number needed to treat was 7.7 (4.3 to 41.4). The intervention group had a better mean total WOMAC score at follow-up at one year compared with the control group (16.3 (0 to 77.7) versus 21.6 (0 to 76.7), p = 0.04). The mean post-operative American Knee Society knee scores and function scores were similar in the intervention and control groups (knee score: 92.4 (55 to 100) versus 90.4 (51 to 100), respectively (p = 0.14); function score: 86.5 (15 to 100) versus 84.5 (30 to 100), respectively (p = 0.49)).

Our study suggests that in the absence of patellar resurfacing electrocautery around the margin of the patella improves the outcome of total knee replacement.

Between April 2004 and July 2007, we performed 241 primary total knee replacements in 204 patients using the e.motion posterior cruciate-retaining, multidirectional mobile-bearing prosthesis. Of these, 100 were carried out using an image-free navigation system, and the remaining 141 with the conventional technique. We conducted a retrospective study from the prospectively collected data of these patients to assess the early results of this new mobile-bearing design. At a mean follow-up of 49 months (32 to 71), 18 knees (7.5%) had mechanical complications of which 13 required revision. Three of these had a peri-prosthetic fracture, and were removed from the study. The indication for revision in the remaining ten was loosening of the femoral component in two, tibiofemoral dislocation in three, disassociation of the polyethylene liner in four, and a broken polyethyene liner in one. There were eight further mechanically unstable knees which presented with recurrent disassociation of the polyethylene liner. There was no significant difference in the incidence of mechanical instability between the navigation-assisted procedures (8 of 99, 8.1%) and the conventionally implanted knees (10 of 139, 7.2%). In our view, the relatively high rate of mechanical complications and revision within 30 months precludes the further use of new design of knee replacement

The management of the patella during total knee replacement is controversial. In some studies the absence of patellar resurfacing results in residual anterior knee pain in over 10% of patients. One form of treatment which may be used in an endeavour to reduce this is circumferential patellar rim electrocautery. This is believed to partially denervate the patella. However, there is no evidence of the efficacy of this procedure, nor do we know if it results in harm.

A retrospective comparative cohort study was performed of 192 patients who had undergone a primary total knee replacement with the porous coated Low Contact Stress rotating platform prosthesis without patellar resurfacing between 2003 and 2007. In 98 patients circumferential electrocautery of the patellar rim was performed and in 94 patients it was not. The two groups were matched for gender and age. The general Oxford Knee Score and the more specific patellar score for anterior knee pain were used to assess patient outcomes a minimum of two years post-operatively.

No statistically significant differences were noted between the groups for either scoring system (p = 0.41 and p = 0.87, respectively). Electrocautery of the patella rim did not improve the outcome scores after primary total knee replacement in our patients.

We carried out 123 consecutive total ankle replacements in 111 patients with a mean follow-up of four years (2 to 8). Patients with a hindfoot deformity of up to 10° (group A, 91 ankles) were compared with those with a deformity of 11° to 30° (group B, 32 ankles). There were 18 failures (14.6%), with no significant difference in survival between groups A and B. The clinical outcome as measured by the post-operative American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Surgeons score was significantly better in group B (p = 0.036). There was no difference between the groups regarding the post-operative range of movement and complications. Correction of the hindfoot deformity was achieved to within 5° of neutral in 27 ankles (84%) of group B patients. However, gross instability was the most common mode of failure in group B. This was not adequately corrected by reconstruction of the lateral ligament.

Total ankle replacement can safely be performed in patients with a hindfoot deformity of up to 30°. The importance of adequate correction of alignment and instability is highlighted.

We compared patient-reported outcomes of the Kinemax fixed- and mobile-bearing total knee replacement in a multi-centre randomised controlled trial. Patients were randomised to the fixed- or the mobile-bearing prosthesis via a sealed envelope method after the bone cuts had been made in the operating theatre. Randomisation was stratified by centre and diagnosis. Patients were assessed pre-operatively and at eight to 12 weeks, one year and two years post-operatively. Validated questionnaires were used which included the Western Ontario MacMasters University, Short-Form 12, Mental Health Index-5, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Knee-Related Quality of Life and Function in Sport and Recreation scales and a validated scale of satisfaction post-operatively. In total, 242 patients (250 knees) with a mean age of 68 years (40 to 80) were recruited from four NHS orthopaedic centres. Of these, 132 patients (54.5%) were women. No statistically significant differences could be identified in any of the patient-reported outcome scores between patients who received the fixed-bearing or the mobile-bearing knee up to two-years post-operatively

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).

We conducted a randomised prospective study to evaluate the clinical and radiological results of a mobile- and fixed-bearing total knee replacement of similar design in 174 patients who had bilateral simultaneous knee replacement. The mean follow-up was for 5.6 years (5.2 to 6.1).

The total knee score, pain score, functional score and range of movement were not statistically different (p > 0.05) between the two groups. Osteolysis was not seen in any knee in either group. Two knees (1%) in the mobile-bearing group required revision because of infection; none in the fixed-bearing group needed revision. Excellent results can be achieved with both mobile- and fixed-bearing prostheses of similar design at mid-term follow-up. We could demonstrate no significant clinical advantage for a mobile bearing.

We present a comparison of the results of the Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in patients younger and older than 60 years of age. The ten-year all-cause survival of the < 60 years of age group (52) was 91% (95% confidence interval (CI) 12), while in the ≥ 60 years of age group (512), the figure was 96% (95% CI 3). For the younger group, the mean Hospital for Special Surgery score at ten-year follow-up (n = 21) was 94 of 100, compared with a mean of 86 of 100 for the older group (n = 135). The results show that the Oxford unicompartmental arthroplasty can achieve ten-year results that are comparable to total knee arthroplasty in patients < 60 years of age. We conclude that for patients aged over 50, age should not be considered a contraindication for this procedure.

We describe a patient with multiple sclerosis (MS), who developed recurrent dislocations after total knee arthroplasty. She had both knees replaced using similar mobile-bearing knee prostheses, but the outcome was worse in the leg which was more severely affected with MS.

Before proceeding to longer-term studies, we have studied the early clinical results of a new mobile-bearing total knee prosthesis in comparison with an established fixed-bearing device. Patients requiring bilateral knee replacement consented to have their operations under one anaesthetic using one of each prosthesis. They also agreed to accept the random choice of knee (right or left) and to remain ignorant as to which side had which implant. Outcomes were measured using the American Knee Society Score (AKSS), the Oxford Knee Score (OKS), and determination of the range of movement and pain scores before and at one year after operation. Preoperatively, there was no systematic difference between the right and left knees. One patient died in the perioperative period and one mobile-bearing prosthesis required early revision for dislocation of the meniscal component. At one year the mean AKSS, OKS and pain scores for the new device were slightly better (p < 0.025) than those for the fixed-bearing device. There was no difference in the range of movement. We believe that this is the first controlled, blinded trial to compare early function of a new knee prosthesis with that of a standard implant. It demonstrates a small but significant clinical advantage for the mobile-bearing design