Aims. Loosening of components after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) can be associated with the development of radiolucent lines (RLLs). The aim of this study was to assess the rate of formation of RLLs in the cemented original design of the ATTUNE TKA and their relationship to loosening. Methods. A systematic search was undertaken using the Cochrane methodology in three online databases: MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL. Studies were screened against predetermined criteria, and data were extracted. Available National Joint Registries in the Network of Orthopaedic Registries of Europe were also screened. A random effects model meta-analysis was undertaken. Results. Of 263 studies, 12 were included with a total of 3,861 TKAs. Meta-analysis of ten studies showed high rates of overall tibial or femoral RLLs for the cemented original design of the ATTUNE TKA. The overall rate was 21.4% (95% confidence interval (CI) 12.7% to 33.7%) for all types of design but was higher for certain subgroups: 27.4% (95% CI 13.4% to 47.9%) for the cruciate-retaining type, and 29.9% (95% CI 15.6% to 49.6%) for the fixed-bearing type. Meta-analysis of five studies comparing the ATTUNE TKA with other implants showed a significantly higher risk of overall tibial or femoral RLLs (odds ratio (OR) 2.841 (95% CI 1.219 to 6.623); p = 0.016) for the ATTUNE. The rates of loosening or revision for loosening were lower, at 1.2% and 0.9% respectively, but the rates varied from 0% to 16.3%. The registry data did not report specifically on the original ATTUNE TKA or on revision due to loosening, but ‘all-cause’ five-year revision rates for the cemented ATTUNE varied from 2.6% to 5.9%. Conclusion. The original cemented ATTUNE TKA has high rates of RLLs, but their clinical significance is uncertain given the overall low associated rates of loosening and revision. However, in view of the high rates of RLLs and the variation in the rates of loosening and revision between studies and registries, close surveillance of patients who have undergone TKA with the original ATTUNE system is recommended. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(6):610–621

Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a cost effective and extremely successful operation. As longevity increases, the demand for primary TKA will continue to rise. The success and survivorship of TKAs are dependent on the demographics of the patient, surgical technique and implant-related factors. . Currently the risk of failure of a TKA requiring revision surgery ten years post-operatively is 5%. . The most common indications for revision include aseptic loosening (29.8%), infection (14.8%), and pain (9.5%). Revision surgery poses considerable clinical burdens on patients and financial burdens on healthcare systems. . We present a current concepts review on the epidemiology of failed TKAs using data from worldwide National Joint Registries. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B(1 Suppl A):105–12

Cementless knee arthroplasty has seen a recent resurgence in popularity due to conceptual advantages, including improved osseointegration providing biological fixation, increased surgical efficiency, and reduced systemic complications associated with cement impaction and wear from cement debris. Increasingly younger and higher demand patients are requiring knee arthroplasty, and as such, there is optimism cementless fixation may improve implant survivorship and functional outcomes.

Compared to cemented implants, the National Joint Registry (NJR) currently reports higher revision rates in cementless total knee arthroplasty (TKA), but lower in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA). However, recent studies are beginning to show excellent outcomes with cementless implants, particularly with UKA which has shown superior performance to cemented varieties. Cementless TKA has yet to show long-term benefit, and currently performs equivalently to cemented in short- to medium-term cohort studies. However, with novel concepts including 3D-printed coatings, robotic-assisted surgery, radiostereometric analysis, and kinematic or functional knee alignment principles, it is hoped they may help improve the outcomes of cementless TKA in the long-term. In addition, though cementless implant costs remain higher due to novel implant coatings, it is speculated cost-effectiveness can be achieved through greater surgical efficiency and potential reduction in revision costs. There is paucity of level one data on long-term outcomes between fixation methods and the cost-effectiveness of modern cementless knee arthroplasty.

This review explores recent literature on cementless knee arthroplasty, with regards to clinical outcomes, implant survivorship, complications, and cost-effectiveness; providing a concise update to assist clinicians on implant choice.

Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(1):48–57.

Aims

Cementless unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) has advantages over cemented UKA, including improved fixation, but has a higher risk of tibial plateau fracture, particularly in Japanese patients. The aim of this multicentre study was to determine when cementless tibial components could safely be used in Japanese patients based on the size and shape of the tibia.

There is a large amount of evidence available about the relative merits of unicompartmental and total knee arthroplasty (UKA and TKA). Based on the same evidence, different people draw different conclusions and as a result, there is great variability in the usage of UKA.

The revision rate of UKA is much higher than TKA and so some surgeons conclude that UKA should not be performed. Other surgeons believe that the main reason for the high revision rate is that UKA is easy to revise and, therefore, the threshold for revision is low. They also believe that UKA has many advantages over TKA such as a faster recovery, lower morbidity and mortality and better function. They therefore conclude that UKA should be undertaken whenever appropriate.

The solution to this argument is to minimise the revision rate of UKA, thereby addressing the main disadvantage of UKA. The evidence suggests that this will be achieved if surgeons use UKA for at least 20% of their knee arthroplasties and use implants that are appropriate for these broad indications.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B(10 Suppl A):3–8.