Prophylactic antibiotics are important in reducing the risk of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) following total knee arthroplasty. Their effectiveness depends on the choice of antibiotic and the optimum timing of their administration, to ensure adequate tissue concentrations. Cephalosporins are typically used, but an increasing number of resistant organisms are causing PJI, leading to the additional use of vancomycin. There are difficulties, however, with the systemic administration of vancomycin including its optimal timing, due to the need for prolonged administration, and potential adverse reactions. Intraosseous regional administration distal to a tourniquet is an alternative and attractive mode of delivery due to the ease of obtaining intraosseous access. Many authors have reported the effectiveness of intraosseous prophylaxis in achieving higher concentrations of antibiotic in the tissues compared with intravenous administration, providing equal or enhanced prophylaxis while minimizing adverse effects. This annotation describes the technique of intraosseous administration of antibiotics and summarizes the relevant clinical literature to date.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(11):1135–1139.

Recent publications have drawn attention to the fact that some brands of joint replacement may contain variants which perform significantly worse (or better) than their ‘siblings’. As a result, the National Joint Registry has performed much more detailed analysis on the larger families of knee arthroplasties in order to identify exactly where these differences may be present and may hitherto have remained hidden. The analysis of the Nexgen knee arthroplasty brand identified that some posterior-stabilized combinations have particularly high revision rates for aseptic loosening of the tibia, and consequently a medical device recall has been issued for the Nexgen ‘option’ tibial component which was implicated. More elaborate signal detection is required in order to identify such variation in results in a routine fashion if patients are to be protected from such variation in outcomes between closely related implant types. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(3):221–226

Orthopaedic surgeons are currently faced with an overwhelming number of choices surrounding total knee arthroplasty (TKA), not only with the latest technologies and prostheses, but also fundamental decisions on alignment philosophies. From ‘mechanical’ to ‘adjusted mechanical’ to ‘restricted kinematic’ to ‘unrestricted kinematic’ — and how constitutional alignment relates to these — there is potential for ambiguity when thinking about and discussing such concepts. This annotation summarizes the various alignment strategies currently employed in TKA. It provides a clear framework and consistent language that will assist surgeons to compare confidently and contrast the concepts, while also discussing the latest opinions about alignment in TKA. Finally, it provides suggestions for applying consistent nomenclature to future research, especially as we explore the implications of 3D alignment patterns on patient outcomes.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(2):102–108.

Dissatisfaction following total knee arthroplasty is a well-documented phenomenon. Although many factors have been implicated, including modifiable and nonmodifiable patient factors, emphasis over the past decade has been on implant alignment and stability as both a cause of, and a solution to, this problem. Several alignment targets have evolved with a proliferation of techniques following the introduction of computer and robotic-assisted surgery. Mechanical alignment targets may achieve mechanically-sound alignment while ignoring the soft tissue envelope; kinematic alignment respects the soft tissue envelope while ignoring the mechanical environment. Functional alignment is proposed as a hybrid technique to allow mechanically-sound, soft tissue-friendly alignment targets to be identified and achieved.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(3):276–279.

Many aspects of total knee arthroplasty have changed since its inception. Modern prosthetic design, better fixation techniques, improved polyethylene wear characteristics and rehabilitation, have all contributed to a large change in revision rates. Arthroplasty patients now expect longevity of their prostheses and demand functional improvement to match. This has led to a re-examination of the long-held belief that mechanical alignment is instrumental to a successful outcome and a focus on restoring healthy joint kinematics. A combination of kinematic restoration and uncemented, adaptable fixation may hold the key to future advances.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B(10 Suppl A):16–19.

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.