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:
The optimal treatment for independent patients with a displaced
intracapsular fracture of the hip remains controversial. The recognised
alternatives are hemiarthroplasty and total hip arthroplasty. At
present there is no established standard of care, with both types
of arthroplasty being used in many centres. We conducted a feasibility study comparing the clinical effectiveness
of a dual mobility acetabular component compared with standard polyethylene
component in total hip arthroplasty for independent patients with
a displaced intracapsular fracture of the hip, for a 12-month period
beginning in June 2013. The primary outcome was the risk of dislocation
one year post-operatively. Secondary outcome measures were EuroQol
5 Dimensions, ICEpop CAPability measure for Older people, Oxford
hip score, mortality and re-operation.Aims
Patients and Methods
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.
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.
