Aims

Stiffness is a common complication after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Pathogenesis is not understood, treatment options are limited, and diagnosis is challenging. The aim of this study was to investigate if MRI can be used to visualize intra-articular scarring in patients with stiff, painful knee arthroplasties.

Aims. The aim of this study was to describe the pattern of revision indications for unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and any change to this pattern for UKA patients over the last 20 years, and to investigate potential associations to changes in surgical practice over time. Methods. All primary knee arthroplasty surgeries performed due to primary osteoarthritis and their revisions reported to the Danish Knee Arthroplasty Register from 1997 to 2017 were included. Complex surgeries were excluded. The data was linked to the National Patient Register and the Civil Registration System for comorbidity, mortality, and emigration status. TKAs were propensity score matched 4:1 to UKAs. Revision risks were compared using competing risk Cox proportional hazard regression with a shared γ frailty component. Results. Aseptic loosening (loosening) was the most common revision indication for both UKA (26.7%) and TKA (29.5%). Pain and disease progression accounted for 54.6% of the remaining UKA revisions. Infections and instability accounted for 56.1% of the remaining TKA revision. The incidence of revision due to loosening or pain decreased over the last decade, being the second and third least common indications in 2017. There was a decrease associated with fixation method for pain (hazard ratio (HR) 0.40; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 0.94) and loosening (HR 0.29; 95% CI 0.10 to 0.81) for cementless compared to cemented, and units UKA usage for pain (HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.91), and loosening (HR 0.51; 95% CI 0.37 to 0.70) for high usage. Conclusion. The overall revision patterns for UKA and TKA for the last 20 years are comparable to previous published patterns. We found large changes to UKA revision patterns in the last decade, and with the current surgical practice, revision due to pain or loosening are significantly less likely. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(12):923–931

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

The rate of day-case total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in the UK is currently approximately 0.5%. Reducing length of stay allows orthopaedic providers to improve efficiency, increase operative throughput, and tackle the rising demand for joint arthroplasty surgery and the COVID-19-related backlog. Here, we report safe delivery of day-case TKA in an NHS trust via inpatient wards with no additional resources.

Aims

A novel enhanced cement fixation (EF) tibial implant with deeper cement pockets and a more roughened bonding surface was released to market for an existing total knee arthroplasty (TKA) system.This randomized controlled trial assessed fixation of the both the EF (ATTUNE S+) and standard (Std; ATTUNE S) using radiostereometric analysis.

Aims. The aim of this study was to determine the risk of tibial eminence avulsion intraoperatively for bi-unicondylar knee arthroplasty (Bi-UKA), with consideration of the effect of implant positioning, overstuffing, and sex, compared to the risk for isolated medial unicondylar knee arthroplasty (UKA-M) and bicruciate-retaining total knee arthroplasty (BCR-TKA). Methods. Two experimentally validated finite element models of tibia were implanted with UKA-M, Bi-UKA, and BCR-TKA. Intraoperative loads were applied through the condyles, anterior cruciate ligament (ACL), medial collateral ligament (MCL), and lateral collateral ligament (LCL), and the risk of fracture (ROF) was evaluated in the spine as the ratio of the 95. th. percentile maximum principal elastic strains over the tensile yield strain of proximal tibial bone. Results. Peak tensile strains occurred on the anterior portion of the medial sagittal cut in all simulations. Lateral translation of the medial implant in Bi-UKA had the largest increase in ROF of any of the implant positions (43%). Overstuffing the joint by 2 mm had a much larger effect, resulting in a six-fold increase in ROF. Bi-UKA had ~10% increased ROF compared to UKA-M for both the male and female models, although the smaller, less dense female model had a 1.4 times greater ROF compared to the male model. Removal of anterior bone akin to BCR-TKA doubled ROF compared to Bi-UKA. Conclusion. Tibial eminence avulsion fracture has a similar risk associated with Bi-UKA to UKA-M. The risk is higher for smaller and less dense tibiae. To minimize risk, it is most important to avoid overstuffing the joint, followed by correctly positioning the medial implant, taking care not to narrow the bone island anteriorly. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2022;11(8):575–584

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. The metabolic equivalent of task (MET) score examines patient performance in relation to energy expenditure before and after knee arthroplasty. This study assesses its use in a knee arthroplasty population in comparison with the widely used Oxford Knee Score (OKS) and EuroQol five-dimension index (EQ-5D), which are reported to be limited by ceiling effects. Methods. A total of 116 patients with OKS, EQ-5D, and MET scores before, and at least six months following, unilateral primary knee arthroplasty were identified from a database. Procedures were performed by a single surgeon between 2014 and 2019 consecutively. Scores were analyzed for normality, skewness, kurtosis, and the presence of ceiling/floor effects. Concurrent validity between the MET score, OKS, and EQ-5D was assessed using Spearman’s rank. Results. Postoperatively the OKS and EQ-5D demonstrated negative skews in distribution, with high kurtosis at six months and one year. The OKS demonstrated a ceiling effect at one year (15.7%) postoperatively. The EQ-5D demonstrated a ceiling effect at six months (30.2%) and one year (39.8%) postoperatively. The MET score did not demonstrate a skewed distribution or ceiling effect either at six months or one year postoperatively. Weak-moderate correlations were noted between the MET score and conventional scores at six months and one year postoperatively. Conclusion. In contrast to the OKS and EQ-5D, the MET score was normally distributed postoperatively with no ceiling effect. It is worth consideration as an arthroplasty outcome measure, particularly for patients with high expectations. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(3):129–137

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. Methods. Patient demographic details, BMI, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, indication for revision, surgical approach, surgeon grade, implant type (fixed and rotating), time of revision from primary implantation, and re-revision if undertaken were obtained from the National Joint Registry data for England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the Isle of Man over an 18-year period (2003 to 2021). Results. There were 3,855 patient episodes analyzed with a median age of 73 years (interquartile range (IQR) 66 to 80), and the majority were female (n = 2,480, 64.3%). The median time to revision from primary knee arthroplasty was 1,219 days (IQR 579 to 2,422). Younger age (p < 0.001), decreasing ASA grade (p < 0.001), and indications for revision of sepsis (p < 0.001), unexplained pain (p < 0.001), non-polyethylene wear (p < 0.001), and malalignment (p < 0.001) were all associated with an earlier time to revision from primary implantation. The median follow-up was 4.56 years (range 0.00 to 17.52), during which there were 410 re-revisions. The overall unadjusted probability of re-revision for all revision HKAs at one, five, and ten years after surgery were 2.7% (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.2 to 3.3), 10.7% (95% CI 9.6 to 11.9), and 16.2% (95% CI 14.5 to 17.9), respectively. Male sex (p < 0.001), younger age (p < 0.001), revision for septic indications (p < 0.001) or implant fracture (p = 0.010), a fixed hinge (p < 0.001), or surgery performed by a non-consultant grade (p = 0.023) were independently associated with an increased risk of re-revision. Conclusion. There were several factors associated with time to first revision. The re-revision rate was 16.2% at ten years; however, the risk factors associated with an increased risk of re-revision could be used to counsel patients regarding their outcome. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(1):47–55

Aims. To map the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) and High Activity Arthroplasty Score (HAAS) items to a common scale, and to investigate the psychometric properties of this new scale for the measurement of knee health. Methods. Patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) data measuring knee health were obtained from the NHS PROMs dataset and Total or Partial Knee Arthroplasty Trial (TOPKAT). Assumptions for common scale modelling were tested. A graded response model (fitted to OKS item responses in the NHS PROMs dataset) was used as an anchor to calibrate paired HAAS items from the TOPKAT dataset. Information curves for the combined OKS-HAAS model were plotted. Bland-Altman analysis was used to compare common scale scores derived from OKS and HAAS items. A conversion table was developed to map between HAAS, OKS, and the common scale. Results. We included 3,329 response sets from 528 patients undergoing knee arthroplasty. These generally met the assumptions of unidimensionality, monotonicity, local independence, and measurement invariance. The HAAS items provided more information than OKS items at high levels of knee health. Combining both instruments resulted in higher test-level information than either instrument alone. The mean error between common scale scores derived from the OKS and HAAS was 0.29 logits. Conclusion. The common scale allowed more precise measurement of knee health than use of either the OKS or HAAS individually. These techniques for mapping PROM instruments may be useful for the standardization of outcome reporting, and pooling results across studies that use either PROM in individual-patient meta-analysis. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2023;12(10):624–635

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. Methods. The project was conducted using the James Lind Alliance protocol. A steering group was convened including patients, surgeons, anaesthetists, nurses, physiotherapists, and researchers. Partner organizations were recruited. A survey was conducted on a national scale through which patients, carers, and healthcare professionals submitted key unanswered questions relating to problematic knee arthroplasties. These were analyzed, aggregated, and synthesized into summary questions and the relevant evidence was checked. After confirming that these were not answered in the current literature, 32 questions were taken forward to an interim prioritization survey. Data from this survey informed a shortlist taken to a final consensus meeting. Results. A total of 769 questions were received during the initial survey with national reach across the UK. These were refined into 32 unique questions by an independent information specialist. The interim prioritization survey was completed by 201 respondents and 25 questions were taken to a final consensus group meeting between patients, carers, and healthcare professionals. Consensus was reached for ranking the top ten questions for publication and dissemination. Conclusions. The top ten research priorities focused on pain, infection, stiffness, health service configuration, surgical and non-surgical management strategies, and outcome measures. This list will guide funders and help focus research efforts within the knee arthroplasty community. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(9):1176–1182

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. Hereditary haemochromatosis is a genetic disorder that is caused by several known mutations in the human homeostatic iron regulator protein (HFE) gene. Abnormal accumulation of iron causes a joint disease that resembles osteoarthritis (OA), but appears at a relatively younger age and is accompanied by cirrhosis, diabetes, and injury to other organs. Increased serum transferrin saturation and ferritin levels are known markers of haemochromatosis with high positive predictive values. Methods. We have retrospectively analyzed the iron studies of a cohort of 2,035 patients undergoing knee joint arthroplasty due to OA. Results. No patients had HFE gene C282Y, S65C, or H63D mutations testing. In total, 18 patients (2.96%) of the male cohort and 51 (3.58%) of the female cohort had pathologically increased ferritin levels that may be indicative of haemochromatosis. Seven patients (0.34%) had serum transferrin saturation above 45%. Conclusion. The awareness for the diagnosis of this disorder in Orthopaedics is low and needs improvement. Osteoarthritic patients undergoing knee arthroplasty should be routinely screened for haemochromatosis by iron studies and referred to genetic testing when needed. Level of evidence: Level III - Retrospective cohort study. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(12):1062–1066

Aims. The purpose of this study was to develop a personalized outcome prediction tool, to be used with knee arthroplasty patients, that predicts outcomes (lengths of stay (LOS), 90 day readmission, and one-year patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) on an individual basis and allows for dynamic modifiable risk factors. Methods. Data were prospectively collected on all patients who underwent total or unicompartmental knee arthroplasty at a between July 2015 and June 2018. Cohort 1 (n = 5,958) was utilized to develop models for LOS and 90 day readmission. Cohort 2 (n = 2,391, surgery date 2015 to 2017) was utilized to develop models for one-year improvements in Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) pain score, KOOS function score, and KOOS quality of life (QOL) score. Model accuracies within the imputed data set were assessed through cross-validation with root mean square errors (RMSEs) and mean absolute errors (MAEs) for the LOS and PROMs models, and the index of prediction accuracy (IPA), and area under the curve (AUC) for the readmission models. Model accuracies in new patient data sets were assessed with AUC. Results. Within the imputed datasets, the LOS (RMSE 1.161) and PROMs models (RMSE 15.775, 11.056, 21.680 for KOOS pain, function, and QOL, respectively) demonstrated good accuracy. For all models, the accuracy of predicting outcomes in a new set of patients were consistent with the cross-validation accuracy overall. Upon validation with a new patient dataset, the LOS and readmission models demonstrated high accuracy (71.5% and 65.0%, respectively). Similarly, the one-year PROMs improvement models demonstrated high accuracy in predicting ten-point improvements in KOOS pain (72.1%), function (72.9%), and QOL (70.8%) scores. Conclusion. The data-driven models developed in this study offer scalable predictive tools that can accurately estimate the likelihood of improved pain, function, and quality of life one year after knee arthroplasty as well as LOS and 90 day readmission. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(9):1183–1193

Aims. Recent studies have suggested that corticosteroid injections into the knee may harm the joint resulting in cartilage loss and possibly accelerating the progression of osteoarthritis (OA). The aim of this study was to assess whether patients with, or at risk of developing, symptomatic osteoarthritis of the knee who receive intra-articular corticosteroid injections have an increased risk of requiring arthroplasty. Methods. We used data from the Osteoarthritis Initiative (OAI), a multicentre observational cohort study that followed 4,796 patients with, or at risk of developing, osteoarthritis of the knee on an annual basis with follow-up available up to nine years. Increased risk for symptomatic OA was defined as frequent knee symptoms (pain, aching, or stiffness) without radiological evidence of OA and two or more risk factors, while OA was defined by the presence of both femoral osteophytes and frequent symptoms in one or both knees. Missing data were imputed with multiple imputations using chained equations. Time-dependent propensity score matching was performed to match patients at the time of receving their first injection with controls. The effect of corticosteroid injections on the rate of subsequent (total and partial) knee arthroplasty was estimated using Cox proportional-hazards survival analyses. Results. After removing patients lost to follow-up, 3,822 patients remained in the study. A total of 249 (31.3%) of the 796 patients who received corticosteroid injections, and 152 (5.0%) of the 3,026 who did not, had knee arthroplasty. In the matched cohort, Cox proportional-hazards regression resulted in a hazard ratio of 1.57 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.37 to 1.81; p < 0.001) and each injection increased the absolute risk of arthroplasty by 9.4% at nine years’ follow-up compared with those who did not receive injections. Conclusion. Corticosteroid injections seem to be associated with an increased risk of knee arthroplasty in patients with, or at risk of developing, symptomatic OA of the knee. These findings suggest that a conservative approach regarding the treatment of these patients with corticosteroid injections should be recommended. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(5):586–592

Aims. Achievement of accurate microbiological diagnosis prior to revision is key to reducing the high rates of persistent infection after revision knee surgery. The effect of change in the microorganism between the first- and second-stage revision of total knee arthroplasty for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) on the success of management is not clear. Methods. A two-centre retrospective cohort study was conducted to review the outcome of patients who have undergone two-stage revision for treatment of knee arthroplasty PJI, focusing specifically on isolated micro-organisms at both the first- and second-stage procedure. Patient demographics, medical, and orthopaedic history data, including postoperative outcomes and subsequent treatment, were obtained from the electronic records and medical notes. Results. The study cohort consisted of 84 patients, of whom 59.5% (n = 50) had successful eradication of their infection at a mean follow-up of 4.7 years. For the 34 patients who had recurrence of infection, 58.8% (n = 20) had a change in isolated organism, compared to 18% (n = 9) in the infection eradication group (p < 0.001). When adjusting for confound, there was no association when the growth on the second stage was the same as the first (odd ratio (OR) 2.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 12.50; p = 0.269); however, when a different organism was identified at the second stage, this was independently associated with failure of treatment (OR 8.40, 95% CI 2.91 to 24.39; p < 0.001). There were no other significant differences between the two cohorts with regard to patient demographics or type of organisms isolated. Conclusion. Change in the identified microorganism between first- and second-stage revision for PJI was associated with failure of management. Identification of this change in the microorganism prior to commencement of the second stage may help target antibiotic management and could improve the success of surgery in these patients. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(9):720–727

Aims. The aim of this study was to determine the long-term risk of undergoing knee arthroplasty in a cohort of patients with meniscal tears who had undergone arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM). Patients and Methods. A retrospective national cohort of patients with a history of isolated APM was identified over a 20-year period. Patients with prior surgery to the same knee were excluded. The primary outcome was knee arthroplasty. Hazard ratios (HRs) were adjusted by patient age, sex, year of APM, Charlson comorbidity index, regional deprivation, rurality, and ethnicity. Risk of arthroplasty in the index knee was compared with the patient’s contralateral knee (with vs without a history of APM). A total of 834 393 patients were included (mean age 50 years; 37% female). Results. Of those with at least 15 years of follow-up, 13.49% (16 256/120 493; 95% confidence interval (CI) 13.30 to 13.69) underwent subsequent arthroplasty within this time. In women, 22.07% (95% CI 21.64 to 22.51) underwent arthroplasty within 15 years compared with 9.91% of men (95% CI 9.71 to 10.12), corresponding to a risk ratio (RR) of 2.23 (95% CI 2.16 to 2.29). Relative to the general population, patients with a history of APM were over ten times more likely (RR 10.27; 95% CI 10.07 to 10.47) to undergo arthroplasty rising to almost 40 times more likely (RR 39.62; 95% CI 27.68 to 56.70) at a younger age (30 to 39 years). In patients with a history of APM in only one knee, the risk of arthroplasty in that knee was greatly elevated in comparison with the contralateral knee (no APM; HR 2.99; 95% CI 2.95 to 3.02). Conclusion. Patients developing a meniscal tear undergoing APM are at greater risk of knee arthroplasty than the general population. This risk is three-times greater in the patient’s affected knee than in the contralateral knee. Women in the cohort were at double the risk of progressing to knee arthroplasty compared with men. These important new reference data will inform shared decision making and enhance approaches to treatment, prevention, and clinical surveillance. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:1071–1080

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. The aim of this study was to compare any differences in the primary outcome (biphasic flexion knee moment during gait) of robotic arm-assisted bi-unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (bi-UKA) with conventional mechanically aligned total knee arthroplasty (TKA) at one year post-surgery. Methods. A total of 76 patients (34 bi-UKA and 42 TKA patients) were analyzed in a prospective, single-centre, randomized controlled trial. Flat ground shod gait analysis was performed preoperatively and one year postoperatively. Knee flexion moment was calculated from motion capture markers and force plates. The same setup determined proprioception outcomes during a joint position sense test and one-leg standing. Surgery allocation, surgeon, and secondary outcomes were analyzed for prediction of the primary outcome from a binary regression model. Results. Both interventions were shown to be effective treatment options, with no significant differences shown between interventions for the primary outcome of this study (18/35 (51.4%) biphasic TKA patients vs 20/31 (64.5%) biphasic bi-UKA patients; p = 0.558). All outcomes were compared to an age-matched, healthy cohort that outperformed both groups, indicating residual deficits exists following surgery. Logistic regression analysis of primary outcome with secondary outcomes indicated that the most significant predictor of postoperative biphasic knee moments was preoperative knee moment profile and trochlear degradation (Outerbridge) (R. 2. = 0.381; p = 0.002, p = 0.046). A separate regression of alignment against primary outcome indicated significant bi-UKA femoral and tibial axial alignment (R. 2. = 0.352; p = 0.029), and TKA femoral sagittal alignment (R. 2. = 0.252; p = 0.016). The bi-UKA group showed a significant increased ability in the proprioceptive joint position test, but no difference was found in more dynamic testing of proprioception. Conclusion. Robotic arm-assisted bi-UKA demonstrated equivalence to TKA in achieving a biphasic gait pattern after surgery for osteoarthritis of the knee. Both treatments are successful at improving gait, but both leave the patients with a functional limitation that is not present in healthy age-matched controls. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;103-B(4):433–443

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