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. Methods. A total of 139 patients were recruited from a single centre. Patients were randomised to receive either a manual UKA implanted with the aid of traditional surgical jigs, or a UKA implanted with the aid of a tactile guided robotic arm-assisted system. Outcome measures included the American Knee Society Score (AKSS), Oxford Knee Score (OKS), Forgotten Joint Score, Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale, University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) activity scale, Short Form-12, Pain Catastrophising Scale, somatic disease (Primary Care Evaluation of Mental Disorders Score), Pain visual analogue scale, analgesic use, patient satisfaction, complications relating to surgery, 90-day pain diaries and the requirement for revision surgery. Results. From the first post-operative day through to week 8 post-operatively, the median pain scores for the robotic arm-assisted group were 55.4% lower than those observed in the manual surgery group (p = 0.040). At three months post-operatively, the robotic arm-assisted group had better AKSS (robotic median 164, interquartile range (IQR) 131 to 178, manual median 143, IQR 132 to 166), although no difference was noted with the OKS. At one year post-operatively, the observed differences with the AKSS had narrowed from a median of 21 points to a median of seven points (p = 0.106) (robotic median 171, IQR 153 to 179; manual median 164, IQR 144 to 182). No difference was observed with the OKS, and almost half of each group reached the ceiling limit of the score (OKS > 43). A greater proportion of patients receiving robotic arm-assisted surgery improved their UCLA activity score. Binary logistic regression modelling for dichotomised outcome scores predicted the key factors associated with achieving excellent outcome on the AKSS: a pre-operative activity level > 5 on the UCLA activity score and use of robotic-arm surgery. For the same regression modelling, factors associated with a poor outcome were manual surgery and pre-operative depression. Conclusion. Robotic arm-assisted surgery results in improved early pain scores and early function scores in some patient-reported outcomes measures, but no difference was observed at one year post-operatively. Although improved results favoured the robotic arm-assisted group in active patients (i.e. UCLA ⩾ 5), these do not withstand adjustment for multiple comparisons. Cite this article: M. J. G. Blyth, I. Anthony, P. Rowe, M. S. Banger, A. MacLean, B. Jones. Robotic arm-assisted versus conventional unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: Exploratory secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial. Bone Joint Res 2017;6:631–639. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.611.BJR-2017-0060.R1

Objectives. To define Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) thresholds for the Oxford hip score (OHS) and Oxford knee score (OKS) at mid-term follow-up. Methods. In a prospective multicentre cohort study, OHS and OKS were collected at a mean follow-up of three years (1.5 to 6.0), combined with a numeric rating scale (NRS) for satisfaction and an external validation question assessing the patient’s willingness to undergo surgery again. A total of 550 patients underwent total hip replacement (THR) and 367 underwent total knee replacement (TKR). Results. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves identified a PASS threshold of 42 for the OHS after THR and 37 for the OKS after TKR. THR patients with an OHS ≥ 42 and TKR patients with an OKS ≥ 37 had a higher NRS for satisfaction and a greater likelihood of being willing to undergo surgery again. Conclusions. PASS thresholds appear larger at mid-term follow-up than at six months after surgery. With- out external validation, we would advise against using these PASS thresholds as absolute thresholds in defining whether or not a patient has attained an acceptable symptom state after THR or TKR. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2014;3:7–13

The biomechanics of the patellofemoral joint can become disturbed during total knee replacement by alterations induced by the position and shape of the different prosthetic components. The role of the patella and femoral trochlea has been well studied. We have examined the effect of anterior or posterior positioning of the tibial component on the mechanisms of patellofemoral contact in total knee replacement. The hypothesis was that placing the tibial component more posteriorly would reduce patellofemoral contact stress while providing a more efficient lever arm during extension of the knee.

We studied five different positions of the tibial component using a six degrees of freedom dynamic knee simulator system based on the Oxford rig, while simulating an active knee squat under physiological loading conditions. The patellofemoral contact force decreased at a mean of 2.2% for every millimetre of posterior translation of the tibial component. Anterior positions of the tibial component were associated with elevation of the patellofemoral joint pressure, which was particularly marked in flexion > 90°.

From our results we believe that more posterior positioning of the tibial component in total knee replacement would be beneficial to the patellofemoral joint.