Aims

This non-blinded randomised controlled trial compared the effect of patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) versus local infiltration analgesia (LIA) within an established enhanced recovery programme on the attainment of discharge criteria and recovery one year after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The hypothesis was that LIA would increase the proportion of patients discharged from rehabilitation by the fourth post-operative day but would not affect outcomes at one year.

The April 2015 Knee Roundup360 looks at: Genetic determinants of ACL strength; TKA outcomes influenced by prosthesis; Single- or two-stage revision for infected TKA?; Arthroscopic meniscectomy: a problem that just won’t go away!; Failure in arthroscopic ACL reconstruction; ACL reconstruction in the over 50s?; Knee arthroplasty for early osteoarthritis; All inside meniscal repair; Steroids, thrombogenic markers and TKA

Objectives

The length of the tourniquet time during total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is related to the incidence of post-operative deep vein thrombosis (DVT). Our aim in this study was to investigate the effect of the early release of the tourniquet on the incidence of DVT in patients undergoing TKA.

If patients could recall their physical status before total hip (THA) or knee arthroplasty (TKA) accurately it could have valuable applications both clinically and for research. This study evaluated the accuracy of a patient’s recollection one year after either THA or TKA using the Oxford hip or knee scores (OHS and OKS). In total, 113 patients (59 THA, 54 TKA) who had completed the appropriate score pre-operatively were asked to complete the score again at a mean of 12.4 months (standard deviation (sd) 0.8) after surgery, recalling their pre-operative state.

While there were no significant differences between the actual and recalled pre-operative scores (OHS mean difference 0.8, sd 6.21, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.82 to 2.42, p = 0.329; OKS mean difference -0.11, sd 7.34, 95% CI -2.11 to 1.89, p = 0.912), absolute differences were relatively large (OHS, 5.24; OKS, 5.41), correlation was weak (OHS r = 0.7, OKS r = 0.61) and agreement between actual and recalled responses for individual questions was poor in half of the OHS and two thirds of the OKS.

A patient’s recollection of pre-operative pain and function is inaccurate one year after THA or TKA.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:1070–5.

Patient specific instrumentation (PSI) uses advanced imaging of the knee (CT or MRI) to generate individualised cutting blocks aimed to make the procedure of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) more accurate and efficient. However, in this era of healthcare cost consciousness, the value of new technologies needs to be critically evaluated. There have been several comparative studies looking at PSI versus standard instrumentation. Most compare PSI with conventional instrumentation in terms of alignment in the coronal plane, operative time and surgical efficiency, cost effectiveness and short-term outcomes. Several systematic reviews and meta-analyses have also been published. PSI has not been shown to be superior compared with conventional instrumentation in its ability to restore traditional mechanical alignment in primary TKA. Most studies show comparative efficacy and no decrease in the number of outliers in either group. In terms of operative time and efficiency, PSI tended towards decreasing operative time, saving a mean of five minutes per patient (0 to 20). Furthermore, while some cost savings could be realised with less operative time and reduced instrumentation per patient, these savings were overcome by the cost of the CT/MRI and the cutting blocks. Finally, there was no evidence that PSI positively affected clinical outcomes at two days, two months, or two years. Consequently, current evidence does not support routine use of PSI in routine primary TKA.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B(1 Suppl A):78–80.

Aims

The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of a femoral nerve block and a periarticular infiltration in the management of early post-operative pain after total knee arthroplasty (TKA).

Objectives

A lack of connection between surgeons and patients in evaluating the outcome of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has led to the search for the ideal patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) to evaluate these procedures. We hypothesised that the desired psychometric properties of the ideal outcome tool have not been uniformly addressed in studies describing TKA PROMS.

The Oxford hip and knee scores (OHS and OKS) are validated patient-reported outcome measures used in patients undergoing total hip replacement (THR), hip resurfacing (HR), total knee replacement (TKR) and unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR). We analysed the absolute OHS and OKS and change in scores following THR, HR, TKR, and UKR performed at one specialist centre. All patients undergoing and completing at least one Oxford score were eligible for inclusion in the study which included 27 950 OHS and 19 750 OKS in 13 682 patients. Data were analysed using non-linear quantile regression. The median absolute Oxford scores for THR, HR, TKR and UKR were pre-operative 68.8% (15.0/48), 58.3% (20.0/48), 66.7% (16.0/48), 60.4% (19.0/48) respectively: and post-operative asymptote was 14.6% (41.0/48), 5.8% (45.2/48), 31.2% (33.0/48), 29.2% (34.0/48). The median asymptotic change from the pre-operative score for THR, HR, TKR and UKR were 47.9% (23.0/48), 47.9% (23.0/48), 33.3% (16.0/48) and 32.4% (15.5/48), respectively. The median time at which no further appreciable change in score was achieved post-operatively was 0.7 years for THR, 1.1 years for HR, 0.9 years for TKR and 1.1 years for UKR.

The curves produced from this analysis could be used to educate patients, and to audit the performance of a surgeon and an institution. The time to achieve a stable improvement in outcome varied between different types of joint replacement, which may have implications for the timing of post-operative review.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014; 96-B:928–35.

Aims

To validate the English language Forgotten Joint Score-12 (FJS-12) as a tool to evaluate the outcome of hip and knee arthroplasty in a United Kingdom population.

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.

Partial knee arthroplasty (PKA), either medial or lateral unicompartmental knee artroplasty (UKA) or patellofemoral arthroplasty (PFA) are a good option in suitable patients and have the advantages of reduced operative trauma, preservation of both cruciate ligaments and bone stock, and restoration of normal kinematics within the knee joint. However, questions remain concerning long-term survival. The goal of this review article was to present the long-term results of medial and lateral UKA, PFA and combined compartmental arthroplasty for multicompartmental disease. Medium- and long-term studies suggest reasonable outcomes at ten years with survival greater than 95% in UKA performed for medial osteoarthritis or osteonecrosis, and similarly for lateral UKA, particularly when fixed-bearing implants are used. Disappointing long-term outcomes have been observed with the first generation of patellofemoral implants, as well as early Bi-Uni (ie, combined medial and lateral UKA) or Bicompartmental (combined UKA and PFA) implants due to design and fixation issues. Promising short- and med-term results with the newer generations of PFAs and bicompartmental arthroplasties will require long-term confirmation.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B(10 Suppl A):9–15.

Aims

To compare the gait of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) patients with healthy controls, using a machine-learning approach.

Aims

Since redesign of the Oxford phase III mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) femoral component to a twin-peg design, there has not been a direct comparison to total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Thus, we explored differences between the two cohorts.

We explored the outcome of staged bilateral total knee replacement (TKR) for symmetrical degenerative joint disease and deformity in terms of patient expectations, functional outcome and satisfaction. From 2009 to 2011, 70 consecutive patients (41 female) with a mean age of 71.7 years (43 to 89) underwent 140 staged bilateral TKRs at our institution, with a mean time between operations of 7.8 months (2 to 25). Patients were assessed pre-operatively and at six and 12 months post-operatively using the Short Form-12, Oxford knee score (OKS), expectation questionnaire and satisfaction score. The pre-operative OKS was significantly worse before the first TKR (TKR1), but displayed significantly greater improvement than that observed after the second TKR (TKR2). Expectation level increased from TKR1 to TKR2 in 17% and decreased in 20%. Expectations of pain relief and stair-climbing were less before TKR2; in contrast, expectations of sporting and social activities were greater. Decreased expectations of TKR2 were significantly associated with younger age and high expectations before TKR1. Patient satisfaction was high for both TKR1 (93%) and TKR2 (87%) but did not correlate significantly within individuals. We concluded that satisfaction with one TKR does not necessarily translate to satisfaction following the second.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:752–8.

Whether to use total or unicompartmental knee replacement (TKA/UKA) for end-stage knee osteoarthritis remains controversial. Although UKA results in a faster recovery, lower rates of morbidity and mortality and fewer complications, the long-term revision rate is substantially higher than that for TKA. The effect of each intervention on patient-reported outcome remains unclear. The aim of this study was to determine whether six-month patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are better in patients after TKA or UKA, using data from a large national joint registry (NJR).

We carried out a propensity score-matched cohort study which compared six-month PROMs after TKA and UKA in patients enrolled in the NJR for England and Wales, and the English national PROM collection programme. A total of 3519 UKA patients were matched to 10 557 TKAs.

The mean six-month PROMs favoured UKA: the Oxford Knee Score was 37.7 (95% confidence interval (CI) 37.4 to 38.0) for UKA and 36.1 (95% CI 35.9 to 36.3) for TKA; the mean EuroQol EQ-5D index was 0.772 (95% CI 0.764 to 0.780) for UKA and 0.751 (95% CI 0.747 to 0.756) for TKA. UKA patients were more likely to achieve excellent results (odds ratio (OR) 1.59, 95% CI 1.47 to 1.72, p < 0.001) and to be highly satisfied (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.39, p <  0.001), and were less likely to report complications than those who had undergone TKA.

UKA gives better early patient-reported outcomes than TKA; these differences are most marked for the very best outcomes. Complications and readmission are more likely after TKA. Although the data presented reflect the short-term outcome, they suggest that the high revision rate for UKA may not be because of poorer clinical outcomes. These factors should inform decision-making in patients eligible for either procedure.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:793–801.

Bicruciate-stabilised total knee replacement (TKR) aims to restore normal kinematics by replicating the function of both cruciate ligaments. We performed a prospective, randomised controlled trial in which bicruciate- and posterior-stabilised TKRs were implanted in 13 and 15 osteo-arthritic knees, respectively. The mean age of the bicruciate-stabilised group was 63.9 years (sd 10.00) and that of the posterior-stabilised group 63.2 years (sd 6.7). A control group comprised 14 normal subjects with a mean age of 67.9 years (sd 7.9). The patellar tendon angle (PTA) was measured one week pre-operatively and at seven weeks post-operatively during knee extension, flexion and step-up exercises.

At near full extension during step-up, the bicruciate-stabilised TKR produced a higher mean PTA than the posterior-stabilised TKR, indicating that the bicruciate design at least partially restored the kinematic role of the anterior cruciate ligament. The bicruciate-stabilised TKR largely restored the pre-operative kinematics, whereas the posterior-stabilised TKR resulted in a consistently lower PTA at all activities. The PTA in the pre-operative knees was higher than in the control group during the step-up and at near full knee extension. Overall, both groups generated a more normal PTA than that seen in previous studies in high knee flexion. This suggested that both designs of TKR were more effective at replicating the kinematic role of the posterior cruciate ligament than those used in previous studies.

Anatomical total knee arthroplasty alignment versus conventional mechanical alignment; or a combination?