Aims. This study aimed to describe the use of revision knee arthroplasty in Australia and examine changes in lifetime risk over a decade. Methods. De-identified individual-level data on all revision knee arthroplasties performed in Australia from 2007 to 2017 were obtained from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. Population data and life tables were obtained from the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The lifetime risk of revision surgery was calculated for each year using a standardized formula. Separate calculations were undertaken for males and females. Results. In total, 43,188 revision knee arthroplasty procedures were performed in Australia during the study period, with a median age at surgery of 69 years (interquartile range (IQR) 62 to 76). In 2017, revision knee arthroplasty rates were highest for males aged 70 to 79 years (102.9 procedures per 100,000 population). Lifetime risk of revision knee arthroplasty for females increased slightly from 1.61% (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.53% to 1.69%) in 2007 to 2.22% (95% CI 2.13% to 2.31%) in 2017. A similar pattern was evident for males, with a lifetime risk of 1.43% (95% CI 1.36% to 1.51%) in 2007 and 2.02% (95% CI 1.93% to 2.11%) in 2017. A decline in procedures performed for loosening/lysis (from 41% in 2007 to 24% in 2017) and pain (from 14% to 9%) was evident, while infection became an increasingly common indication (from 19% in 2007 to 29% in 2017). Conclusion. Well-validated national registry data can help us understand the epidemiology of revision knee arthroplasty, including changing clinical indications. Despite a small increase over a decade, the lifetime risk of revision knee arthroplasty in Australia is low at one in 45 females and one in 50 males. These methods offer a population-level approach to quantifying revision burden that can be used for ongoing national surveillance and between-country comparisons. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(5):613–619

Aims. To estimate the measurement properties for the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) in patients undergoing revision knee arthroplasty (responsiveness, minimal detectable change (MDC-90), minimal important change (MIC), minimal important difference (MID), internal consistency, construct validity, and interpretability). Methods. Secondary data analysis was performed for 10,727 patients undergoing revision knee arthroplasty between 2013 to 2019 using a UK national patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) dataset. Outcome data were collected before revision and at six months postoperatively, using the OKS and EuroQol five-dimension score (EQ-5D). Measurement properties were assessed according to COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guidelines. Results. A total of 9,219 patients had complete outcome data. Mean preoperative OKS was 16.7 points (SD 8.1), mean postoperative OKS 29.1 (SD 11.4), and mean change in OKS + 12.5 (SD 10.7). Median preoperative EQ-5D index was 0.260 (interquartile range (IQR) 0.055 to 0.691), median postoperative EQ-5D index 0.691 (IQR 0.516 to 0.796), and median change in EQ-5D index + 0.240 (IQR 0.000 to 0.567). Internal consistency was good with Cronbach’s α 0.88 (baseline) and 0.94 (post-revision). Construct validity found a high correlation of OKS total score with EQ-5D index (r = 0.76 (baseline), r = 0.83 (post-revision), p < 0.001). The OKS was responsive with standardized effect size (SES) 1.54 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.51 to 1.57), compared to SES 0.83 (0.81 to 0.86) for the EQ-5D index. The MIC for the OKS was 7.5 points (95% CI 5.5 to 8.5) based on the optimal cut-off with specificity 0.72, sensitivity 0.60, and area under the curve 0.66. The MID for the OKS was 5.2 points. The MDC-90 was 3.9 points. The OKS did not demonstrate significant floor or ceiling effects. Conclusion. This study found that the OKS was a useful and valid instrument for assessment of outcome following revision knee arthroplasty. The OKS was responsive to change and demonstrated good measurement properties. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(4):627–634

Aims. The aim of this study was to determine the long-term mortality rate, and to identify factors associated with this, following primary and revision knee arthroplasty (KA). Methods. Data from the Scottish Arthroplasty Project (1998 to 2019) were retrospectively analyzed. Patient mortality data were linked from the National Records of Scotland. Analyses were performed separately for the primary and revised KA cohorts. The standardized mortality ratio (SMR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated for the population at risk. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards were used to identify predictors and estimate relative mortality risks. Results. At a median 7.4 years (interquartile range (IQR) 4.0 to 11.6) follow-up, 27.8% of primary (n = 27,474/98,778) and 31.3% of revision (n = 2,611/8,343) KA patients had died. Both primary and revision cohorts had lower mortality rates than the general population (SMR 0.74 (95% CI 0.73 to 0.74); p < 0.001; SMR 0.83 (95% CI 0.80 to 0.86); p < 0.001, respectively), which persisted for 12 and eighteight years after surgery, respectively. Factors associated with increased risk of mortality after primary KA included male sex (hazard ratio (HR) 1.40 (95% CI 1.36 to 1.45)), increasing socioeconomic deprivation (HR 1.43 (95% CI 1.36 to 1.50)), inflammatory polyarthropathy (HR 1.79 (95% CI 1.68 to 1.90)), greater number of comorbidities (HR 1.59 (95% CI 1.51 to 1.68)), and periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) requiring revision (HR 1.92 (95% CI 1.57 to 2.36)) when adjusting for age. Similarly, male sex (HR 1.36 (95% CI 1.24 to 1.49)), increasing socioeconomic deprivation (HR 1.31 (95% CI 1.12 to 1.52)), inflammatory polyarthropathy (HR 1.24 (95% CI 1.12 to 1.37)), greater number of comorbidities (HR 1.64 (95% CI 1.33 to 2.01)), and revision for PJI (HR 1.35 (95% 1.18 to 1.55)) were independently associated with an increased risk of mortality following revision KA when adjusting for age. Conclusion. The SMR of patients undergoing primary and revision KA was lower than that of the general population and remained so for several years post-surgery. However, approximately one in four patients undergoing primary and one in three patients undergoing revision KA died within tenten years of surgery. Several patient and surgical factors, including PJI, were associated with the risk of mortality within ten years of primary and revision surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(1):45–52

Aims. To compare rates of serious adverse events in patients undergoing revision knee arthroplasty with consideration of the indication for revision (urgent versus elective indications), and compare these with primary arthroplasty and re-revision arthroplasty. Methods. Patients undergoing primary knee arthroplasty were identified in the national Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) between 1 April 1997 to 31 March 2017. Subsequent revision and re-revision arthroplasty procedures in the same patients and same knee were identified. The primary outcome was 90-day mortality and a logistic regression model was used to investigate factors associated with 90-day mortality and secondary adverse outcomes, including infection (undergoing surgery), pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, and stroke. Urgent indications for revision arthroplasty were defined as infection or fracture, and all other indications (e.g. loosening, instability, wear) were included in the elective indications cohort. Results. A total of 939,021 primary knee arthroplasty procedures were included (939,021 patients), of which 40,854 underwent subsequent revision arthroplasty, and 9,100 underwent re-revision arthroplasty. Revision surgery for elective indications was associated with a 90-day rate of mortality of 0.44% (135/30,826; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.37 to 0.52) which was comparable to primary knee arthroplasty (0.46%; 4,292/939,021; 95% CI 0.44 to 0.47). Revision arthroplasty for infection was associated with a much higher mortality of 2.04% (184/9037; 95% CI 1.75 to 2.35; odds ratio (OR) 3.54; 95% CI 2.81 to 4.46), as was revision for periprosthetic fracture at 5.25% (52/991; 95% CI 3.94 to 6.82; OR 6.23; 95% CI 4.39 to 8.85). Higher rates of pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, and stroke were also observed in the infection and fracture cohort. Conclusion. Patients undergoing revision arthroplasty for urgent indications (infection or fracture) are at higher risk of mortality and serious adverse events in comparison to primary knee arthroplasty and revision arthroplasty for elective indications. These findings will be important for patient consent and shared decision-making and should inform service design for this patient cohort. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(10):1578–1585

We present detailed information about early morbidity after aseptic revision knee replacement from a nationwide study. All aseptic revision knee replacements undertaken between 1st October 2009 and 30th September 2011 were analysed using the Danish National Patient Registry with additional information from the Danish Knee Arthroplasty Registry. The 1218 revisions involving 1165 patients were subdivided into total revisions, large partial revisions, partial revisions and revisions of unicondylar replacements (UKR revisions). The mean age was 65.0 years (27 to 94) and the median length of hospital stay was four days (interquartile range: 3 to 5), with a 90 days re-admission rate of 9.9%, re-operation rate of 3.5% and mortality rate of 0.2%. The age ranges of 51 to 55 years (p = 0.018), 76 to 80 years (p < 0.001) and ≥ 81 years (p < 0.001) were related to an increased risk of re-admission. The age ranges of 76 to 80 years (p = 0.018) and the large partial revision subgroup (p = 0.073) were related to an increased risk of re-operation. The ages from 76 to 80 years (p < 0.001), age ≥ 81 years (p < 0.001) and surgical time > 120 min (p <  0.001) were related to increased length of hospital stay, whereas the use of a tourniquet (p = 0.008) and surgery in a low volume centre (p = 0.013) were related to shorter length of stay. . In conclusion, we found a similar incidence of early post-operative morbidity after aseptic knee revisions as has been reported after primary procedures. This suggests that a length of hospital stay ≤ four days and discharge home at that time is safe following aseptic knee revision surgery in Denmark. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:1649–56

Aims

The aim of this study was to identify variables associated with time to revision, demographic details associated with revision indication, and type of prosthesis employed, and to describe the survival of hinge knee arthroplasty (HKA) when used for first-time knee revision surgery and factors that were associated with re-revision.

Objectives. The purpose of this study was to develop an accurate, reliable and easily applicable method for determining the anatomical location of the joint line during revision knee arthroplasty. Methods. The transepicondylar width (TEW), the perpendicular distance between the medial and lateral epicondyles and the distal articular surfaces (DMAD, DLAD) and the distance between the medial and lateral epicondyles and the posterior articular surfaces (PMAD, DLAD) were measured in 40 knees from 20 formalin-fixed adult cadavers (11 male and nine female; mean age at death 56.9 years, . sd. 9.4; 34 to 69). The ratios of the DMAD, PMAD, DLAD and PLAD to TEW were calculated. Results. The mean TEW, DMAD, PMAD, DLAD and PLAD were 82.76 mm (standard deviation (. sd. ) 7.74), 28.95 mm (. sd. 3.3), 28.57 mm (. sd. 3), 23.97 mm (. sd. 3.27) and 24.42 mm (. sd. 3.14), respectively. The ratios between the TEW and the articular distances (DMAD/TEW, DLAD/TEW, PMAD/TEW and PLAD/TEW) were calculated and their means were 0.35 (. sd. 0.02), 0.34 (. sd. 0.02), 0.28 (. sd. 0.03) and 0.29 (. sd. 0.03), respectively. Conclusion. This method provides a simple, reproducible and reliable technique enabling accurate anatomical joint line restoration during revision total knee arthroplasty. Cite this article: B. Ozkurt, T. Sen, D. Cankaya, S. Kendir, K. Basarır, Y. Tabak. The medial and lateral epicondyle as a reliable landmark for intra-operative joint line determination in revision knee arthroplasty. Bone Joint Res 2016;5:280–286. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.57.BJR-2016-0002.R1

Aims

In the last decade, perioperative advancements have expanded the use of outpatient primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Despite this, there remains limited data on expedited discharge after revision TKA. This study compared 30-day readmissions and reoperations in patients undergoing revision TKA with a hospital stay greater or less than 24 hours. The authors hypothesized that expedited discharge in select patients would not be associated with increased 30-day readmissions and reoperations.

We report the five- to-ten year results of Anderson Orthopaedic Research Institute type-2 bone defects treated with modular metal augments in revision knee surgery. A total of 102 revision knee arthroplasties in patients with type-2 defects treated with augments and stems were prospectively studied. Seven patients (seven knees) had incomplete follow-up and 15 patients (16 knees) died with the arthroplasty in situ. The mean follow-up of the 79 remaining knees was 7 ± 2 years (5 to 11). The presence of non-progressive radiolucent lines around the augment in 14% of knees was not associated with poorer knee scores, the range of movement, survival of the component or the type of insert which was used (p > 0.05). The survival of the components was 92 ± 0.03% at 11 years (95% CI, 10.3 to 11.2). We recommend the use of modular augmentation devices to treat type-2 defects in revision knee surgery

Aims

The James Lind Alliance aims to bring patients, carers, and clinicians together to identify uncertainties regarding care. A Priority Setting Partnership was established by the British Association for Surgery of the Knee in conjunction with the James Lind Alliance to identify research priorities related to the assessment, management, and rehabilitation of patients with persistent symptoms after knee arthroplasty.

We report the results of revision total knee replacement (TKR) in 26 patients with major metaphyseal osteolytic defects using 29 trabecular metal cones in conjunction with a rotating hinged total knee prosthesis. The osteolytic defects were types II and III (A or B) according to the Anderson Orthopaedic Research Institute (AORI) classification. The mean age of the patients was 72 years (62 to 84) and there were 15 men and 11 women. In this series patients had undergone a mean of 2.34 previous total knee arthroplasties. The main objective was to restore anatomy along with stability and function of the knee joint to allow immediate full weight-bearing and active knee movement. Outcomes were measured using Knee Society scores, Oxford knee scores, range of movement of the knee and serial radiographs. Patients were followed for a mean of 36 months (24 to 49). The mean Oxford knee clinical scores improved from 12.83 (10 to 15) to 35.20 (32 to 38) (p < 0.001) and mean American Knee Society scores improved from 33.24 (13 to 36) to 81.12 (78 to 86) (p < 0.001). No radiolucent lines suggestive of loosening were seen around the trabecular metal cones, and by one year all the radiographs showed good osteo-integration. There was no evidence of any collapse or implant migration. Our early results confirm the findings of others that trabecular metal cones offer a useful way of managing severe bone loss in revision TKR.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:1069–74.

We carried out 60 revision procedures for failed porous coated anatomic total knee replacements in 54 patients, which were divided into two groups. The 14 knees in group I had a well-fixed femoral component at surgery which was retained, and in the 46 knees in group II both tibial and femoral components were loose and were revised using a variety of implants. Our review comprised clinical and radiological assessment.

A total of 13 knees required a second revision. Six (42%) in group I failed very early (mean 2.1 years) when compared with seven (15%) in group II (mean 6.8 years). Failure was due to wear of the polyethylene insert by the abraded, retained femoral component (crude odds ratio 4.07; 95% CI 1.07 to 15.5). We recommend a complete change of primary bearing surfaces at the time of revision of an uncemented total knee replacement in order to prevent early wear of polyethylene.

We have compared the survival of 67 revision arthroplasties of the knee undertaken for aseptic loosening with and without the retention of a secure, cemented femoral component. All the patients had undergone a single primary procedure at a mean of nine years previously. In group I (25 knees) the original femoral component was secure and was retained. There were no abrasions or osteolysis. The knees were stable, normally aligned, with minimal bone loss. In group II 42 knees did not fulfil these criteria and underwent revision of both components. The mean follow-up was four years.

Re-revision for loosening was required in seven knees (28%) in group I and three (7%) in group II (p < 0.01). The remaining knees function well with Knee Society scores averaging 84/69 and no radiological evidence of osteolysis. When revising cemented implants, retention of a secure femoral component cannot be recommended even when conditions appear to be suitable.

The December 2024 Knee Roundup. 360. looks at: Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty in the same patient?; Lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: is it a good option?; The fate of the unresurfaced patellae in contemporary total knee arthroplasty: early- to mid-term results; Tibial baseplate migration is not associated with change in PROMs and clinical scores after total knee arthroplasty; Unexpected positive intraoperative cultures in aseptic revision knee arthroplasty: what effect does this have?; Kinematic or mechanical alignment in total knee arthroplasty surgery?; Revision total knee arthroplasty achieves minimal clinically important difference faster than primary total knee arthroplasty; Outcomes after successful DAIR for periprosthetic joint infection in total knee arthroplasty

Aims. Metal particles detached from metal-on-metal hip prostheses (MoM-THA) have been shown to cause inflammation and destruction of tissues. To further explore this, we investigated the histopathology (aseptic lymphocyte-dominated vasculitis-associated lesions (ALVAL) score) and metal concentrations of the periprosthetic tissues obtained from patients who underwent revision knee arthroplasty. We also aimed to investigate whether accumulated metal debris was associated with ALVAL-type reactions in the synovium. Methods. Periprosthetic metal concentrations in the synovia and histopathological samples were analyzed from 230 patients from our institution from October 2016 to December 2019. An ordinal regression model was calculated to investigate the effect of the accumulated metals on the histopathological reaction of the synovia. Results. Median metal concentrations were as follows: cobalt: 0.69 μg/g (interquartile range (IQR) 0.10 to 6.10); chromium: 1.1 μg/g (IQR 0.27 to 4.10); and titanium: 1.6 μg/g (IQR 0.90 to 4.07). Moderate ALVAL scores were found in 30% (n = 39) of the revised knees. There were ten patients with an ALVAL score of 6 or more who were revised for suspected periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), aseptic loosening, or osteolysis. R2 varied between 0.269 and 0.369 for the ordinal regression models. The most important variables were model type, indication for revision, and cobalt and chromium in the ordinal regression models. Conclusion. We found that metal particles released from the knee prosthesis can accumulate in the periprosthetic tissues. Several patients revised for suspected culture-negative PJI had features of an ALVAL reaction, which is a novel finding. Therefore, ALVAL-type reactions can also be found around knee prostheses, but they are mostly mild and less common than those found around metal-on-metal prostheses. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2024;13(4):149–156

The February 2023 Knee Roundup. 360. looks at: Machine-learning models: are all complications predictable?; Positive cultures can be safely ignored in revision arthroplasty patients that do not meet the 2018 International Consensus Meeting Criteria; Spinal versus general anaesthesia in contemporary primary total knee arthroplasty; Preoperative pain and early arthritis are associated with poor outcomes in total knee arthroplasty; Risk factors for infection and revision surgery following patellar tendon and quadriceps tendon repairs; Supervised versus unsupervised rehabilitation following total knee arthroplasty; Kinematic alignment has similar outcomes to mechanical alignment: a systematic review and meta-analysis; Lifetime risk of revision after knee arthroplasty influenced by age, sex, and indication; Risk factors for knee osteoarthritis after traumatic knee injury

The December 2015 Knee Roundup360 looks at: Albumin and complications in knee arthroplasty; Tantalum: a knee fixation for all seasons?; Dynamic knee alignment; Tibial component design in UKA; Managing the tidal wave of revision knee arthroplasty; Scoring pain in TKR; Does anyone have a ‘normal’ tibial slope?; XLPE in TKR? A five-year clinical study; Spacers and infected revision arthroplasties; Dialysis and arthroplasty

Worldwide rates of primary and revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) are rising due to increased longevity of the population and the burden of osteoarthritis. Revision TKA is a technically demanding procedure generating outcomes which are reported to be inferior to those of primary knee arthroplasty, and with a higher risk of complication. Overall, the rate of revision after primary arthroplasty is low, but the number of patients currently living with a TKA suggests a large potential revision healthcare burden. Many patients are now outliving their prosthesis, and consideration must be given to how we are to provide the necessary capacity to meet the rising demand for revision surgery and how to maximise patient outcomes. The purpose of this review was to examine the epidemiology of, and risk factors for, revision knee arthroplasty, and to discuss factors that may enhance patient outcomes. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015; 97-B:723–8