Total hip and knee arthroplasty (THA, TKA) are largely successful procedures; however, both have variable outcomes, resulting in some patients being dissatisfied with the outcome. Surgeons are turning to technologies such as robotic-assisted surgery in an attempt to improve outcomes. Robust studies are needed to find out if these innovations are really benefitting patients. The Robotic Arthroplasty Clinical and Cost Effectiveness Randomised Controlled Trials (RACER) trials are multicentre, patient-blinded randomized controlled trials. The patients have primary osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. The operation is Mako-assisted THA or TKA and the control groups have operations using conventional instruments. The primary clinical outcome is the Forgotten Joint Score at 12 months, and there is a built-in analysis of cost-effectiveness. Secondary outcomes include early pain, the alignment of the components, and medium- to long-term outcomes. This annotation outlines the need to assess these technologies and discusses the design and challenges when conducting such trials, including surgical workflows, isolating the effect of the operation, blinding, and assessing the learning curve. Finally, the future of robotic surgery is discussed, including the need to contemporaneously introduce and evaluate such technologies. Cite this article:
Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) has
numerous advantages over total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and one disadvantage,
the higher revision rate. The best way to minimize the revision
rate is for surgeons to use UKA for at least 20% of their knee arthroplasties.
To achieve this, they need to learn and apply the appropriate indications
and techniques. This would decrease the revision rate and increase
the number of UKAs which were implanted, which would save money
and patients would benefit from improved outcomes over their lifetime. Cite this article:
National registers compare implants by their revision rates, but the validity of the method has never been assessed. The New Zealand Joint Registry publishes clinical outcomes (Oxford knee scores, OKS) alongside revision rates, allowing comparison of the two measurements. In the two types of knee replacement, unicompartmental (UKR) had a better knee score than total replacement (TKR), but the revision rate of the former was nearly three times higher than that of the latter. This was because the sensitivity of the revision rate to clinical failure was different for the two implants. For example, of knees with a very poor outcome (OKS <
20 points), only about 12% of TKRs were revised compared with about 63% of UKRs with similar scores. Revision therefore is not an objective measurement and should not be used to compare these two types of implant. Furthermore, revision is much less sensitive than the OKS to clinical failure in both types and therefore exaggerates the success of knee replacements, particularly of TKR.
Since the introduction of the first National Arthroplasty Register in Sweden in 1975, many other countries have tried to adopt the successful Scandinavian system. However, not all have overcome the political and practical difficulties of establishing a working register. We have surveyed the current registries to establish the key factors required for an effective database. We have received detailed information from 15 arthroplasty registers worldwide. The legal conditions under which they operate together with the methods of collection and handling of the data differ widely, but the fulfilment of certain criteria is necessary achieve a high degree of completeness of the data to ensure the provision of statistically relevant information.
The Oxford hip and knee scores have been extensively used since they were first described in 1996 and 1998. During this time, they have been modified and used for many different purposes. This paper describes how they should be used and seeks to clarify areas of confusion.
