Aims

Approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2004, the Phase III Oxford Medial Partial Knee is used to treat anteromedial osteoarthritis (AMOA) in patients with an intact anterior cruciate ligament. This unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is relatively new in the United States, and therefore long-term American results are lacking.

The February 2015 Knee Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Intra-operative sensors for knee balance; Mobile bearing no advantage; Death and knee replacement: a falling phenomenon; The swings and roundabouts of unicompartmental arthroplasty; Regulation, implants and innovation; The weight of arthroplasty responsibility!; BMI in arthroplasty

Over the past 30 years there have been many improvements in implant fixation, correction of deformity, improved polyethylene wear, and survival after knee replacement. The work over the last decade has focused on less invasive surgical techniques, multimodal pain management protocols, more rapid functional recovery and reduced length of stay, aiming to minimise the side effects of treatment while maintaining function and implant durability. When combined and standardised these pre-, intra- and post-operative factors have now facilitated outpatient knee replacement procedures for unicompartmental replacement, patella femoral arthroplasty and total knee replacement (TKR).

We have found liposomal bupivacaine, with potential for longer therapeutic action, to be a helpful adjunct and describe our current pain management program. The next step in our multimodal program is to improve the duration of patient satisfaction and reduce cost and length of stay after TKR.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B(11 Suppl A):7–9.

The use of robots in orthopaedic surgery is an emerging field that is gaining momentum. It has the potential for significant improvements in surgical planning, accuracy of component implantation and patient safety. Advocates of robot-assisted systems describe better patient outcomes through improved pre-operative planning and enhanced execution of surgery. However, costs, limited availability, a lack of evidence regarding the efficiency and safety of such systems and an absence of long-term high-impact studies have restricted the widespread implementation of these systems. We have reviewed the literature on the efficacy, safety and current understanding of the use of robotics in orthopaedics.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015; 97-B:292–9.

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

The October 2015 Knee Roundup360 looks at: Allergy and outcome in arthroplasty; Physiotherapy and drains not such a bad combination?; Another nail in the coffin for arthroscopists?; Graft precondition hocus pocus; Extended dose steroids in knee arthritis?; Indolent peri-prosthetic infection; Computer modelling and medial knee arthritis

Aims

The aim of this study was to present data on 11 459 patients who underwent total hip (THA), total knee (TKA) or unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) between November 2002 and April 2014 with aspirin as the primary agent for pharmacological thromboprophylaxis.

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.

This is the second of a series of reviews of registries. This review looks specifically at worldwide registry data that have been collected on knee arthroplasty, what we have learned from their reports, and what the limitations are as to what we currently know.

This study reports on the first 150 consecutive Oxford cementless unicompartmental knee arthroplasties (UKA) performed in an independent centre (126 patients). All eligible patients had functional scores (Oxford knee score and high activity arthroplasty score) recorded pre-operatively and at two- and five-years of follow-up. Fluoroscopically aligned radiographs were taken at five years and analysed for any evidence of radiolucent lines (RLLs), subsidence or loosening. The mean age of the cohort was 63.6 years (39 to 86) with 81 (53.1%) males. Excellent functional scores were maintained at five years and there were no progressive RLLs demonstrated on radiographs. Two patients underwent revision to a total knee arthroplasty giving a revision rate of 0.23/100 (95% confidence interval 0.03 to 0.84) component years with overall component survivorship of 98.7% at five years. There were a further four patients who underwent further surgery on the same knee, two underwent bearing exchanges for dislocation and two underwent lateral UKAs for disease progression. This was a marked improvement from other UKAs reported in New Zealand Joint Registry data and supports the designing centre’s early results.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:1358–63.

The October 2013 Knee Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Make it easy, release the MCL; Do patients remember clinical information in day surgery?; Osteoarthritis and arthroscopy?; How best to double your bundles; When to operate for infection; Cementless unicompartment knee replacement?; Tibial tubercle-trochlear groove confusion; Tarts, cherries and osteoarthritis

This randomised trial evaluated the outcome of a single design of unicompartmental arthroplasty of the knee (UKA) with either a cemented all-polyethylene or a metal-backed modular tibial component. A total of 63 knees in 45 patients (17 male, 28 female) were included, 27 in the all-polyethylene group and 36 in the metal-backed group. The mean age was 57.9 years (39.6 to 76.9). At a mean follow-up of 6.4 years (5 to 9.9), 11 all-polyethylene components (41%) were revised (at a mean of 5.8 years; 1.4 to 8.0) post-operatively and two metal-backed components were revised (at one and five years). One revision in both groups was for unexplained pain, one in the metal-backed group was for progression of osteoarthritis. The others in the all-polyethylene group were for aseptic loosening. The survivorship at seven years calculated by the Kaplan–Meier method for the all-polyethylene group was 56.5% (95% CI 31.9 to 75.2, number at risk 7) and for the metal-backed group was 93.8% (95% CI 77.3 to 98.4, number at risk 16) This difference was statistically significant (p <  0.001). At the most recent follow-up, significantly better mean Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index Scores were found in the all-polyethylene group (13.4 vs 23.0, p = 0.03) but there was no difference in the mean Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome scores (68.8; 41.4 to 99.0 vs 62.6; 24.0 to 100.0), p = 0.36). There were no significant differences for range of movement (p = 0.36) or satisfaction (p = 0.23).

This randomised study demonstrates that all-polyethylene components in this design of fixed bearing UKA had unsatisfactory results with significantly higher rates of failure before ten years compared with the metal-back components.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:786–92.

We assessed the outcome of patients who were lost to follow-up after arthroplasty by a single surgeon. The aim was to validate the surgeon’s data set with the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry and determine the outcome of those patients lost to follow-up.

Prospective data on patient demographics, operative details and outcomes of the surgeon’s 1192 primary unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) procedures were analysed. There were 69 knees in patients who were lost to follow-up, among whom the Registry identified 31 deaths and eight revisions.

The cumulative percentage revision (CPR) at seven years using the additional Registry data was 8.8% (95% confidence interval (CI) 7 to 11). Using the surgeon’s data, the CPR at seven years was 8% (95% CI 6.3 to 10.1) for the best-case scenario where loss to follow-up was excluded, and 16% (95% CI 13.8 to 19.4) for the worst-case scenario, where all patients lost to follow-up were deemed to have been revised. There was a significantly higher mortality rate in those patients lost to follow-up.

This study demonstrates that a national joint registry can be used by individual surgeons to establish more accurate revision rates in their arthroplasty patients. This is expected to facilitate a more rigorous audit of surgical outcomes by surgeons and lead to more accurate and uniform reporting of the results of arthroplasty in general.

This prospective study describes the complications and survival of the first 688 Phase 3 Oxford medial unicompartmental knee replacements implanted using a minimally-invasive technique by two surgeons and followed up independently. None was lost to follow-up. We had carried out 132 of the procedures more than five years ago. The clinical assessment of 101 of these which were available for review at five years is also presented.

Nine of the 688 knees were revised: four for infection, three for dislocation of the bearing and two for unexplained pain. A further seven knees (1%) required other procedures: four had a manipulation under anaesthesia, two an arthroscopy and one a debridement for superficial infection. The survival rate at seven years was 97.3% (95% confidence interval 5.3). At five years, 96% of the patients had a good or excellent American Knee Society score, the mean Oxford knee score was 39 and the mean flexion was 133°. This study demonstrates that the minimally-invasive Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement is a reliable and effective procedure.

We analysed whether a high body mass index (BMI) had a deleterious effect on outcome following autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI) or matrix-carried autologous chondrocyte implantation (MACI) for the treatment of full-thickness chondral defects of the knee from a subset of patients enrolled in the ACI vs MACI trial at The Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital.

The mean Modified Cincinnati scores (MCS) were significantly higher (p < 0.001) post-operatively in patients who had an ideal body weight (n = 53; 20 to 24.9 kg/m²) than in overweight (n = 63; 25 to 30 kg/m²) and obese patients (n = 22; > 30 kg/m²). At a follow-up of two years, obese patients demonstrated no sustained improvement in the MCS. Patients with an ideal weight experienced significant improvements as early as six months after surgery (p = 0.007). In total, 82% of patients (31 of 38) in the ideal group had a good or excellent result, compared with 49% (22 of 45) of the overweight and 5.5% (one of 18) in the obese group (p < 0.001). There was a significant negative relationship between BMI and the MCS 24 months after surgery (r = -0.4, p = 0.001).

This study demonstrates that obese patients have worse knee function before surgery and experience no sustained benefit from ACI or MACI at two years after surgery. There was a correlation between increasing BMI and a lower MCS according to a linear regression analysis. On the basis of our findings patient selection can be more appropriately targeted.

In a global environment of rising costs and limited funds, robotic and computer-assisted orthopaedic technologies could provide the means to drive a necessary revolution in arthroplasty productivity. Robots have been used to operate on humans for 20 years, but the adoption of the technology has lagged behind that of the manufacturing industry. The use of robots in surgery should enable cost savings by reducing instrumentation and inventories, and improving accuracy. Despite these benefits, the orthopaedic community has been resistant to change. If the ergonomics and economics are right, robotic technology just might transform the provision of joint replacement.

The October 2014 Knee Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: microfracture equivalent to OATS; examination better than MRI in predicting hamstrings re-injury; a second view on return to play with hamstrings injuries; dislocation risks in the Oxford Unicompartmental Knee; what about the tibia?; getting on top of lateral facet pain post TKR; readmission in TKR; patient-specific instrumentation; treating infrapatellar saphenous neuralgia; and arthroscopy in the middle-aged.

Aseptic loosening of the femoral component is an important indication for revision surgery in unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR). A new design of femoral component with an additional peg was introduced for the cemented Oxford UKR to increase its stability. The purpose of this study was to compare the primary stability of the two designs of component.

Medial Oxford UKR was performed in 12 pairs of human cadaver knees. In each pair, one knee received the single peg and one received the twin peg design. Three dimensional micromotion and subsidence of the component in relation to the bone was measured under cyclical loading at flexion of 40° and 70° using an optical measuring system. Wilcoxon matched pairs signed-rank test was performed to detect differences between the two groups.

There was no significant difference in the relative micromotion (p = 0.791 and 0.380, respectively) and subsidence (p = 0.301 and 0.176, respectively) of the component between the two groups at both angles of flexion. Both designs of component offered good strength of fixation in this cadaver study.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:896–901.

The Unispacer knee system is a cobalt-chrome self-centring tibial hemiarthroplasty device for use in the treatment of isolated medial compartment osteoarthritis of the knee. The indications for use are similar to those for high tibial osteotomy, but insertion does not require bone cuts or component fixation, and does not compromise future knee replacement surgery. A prospective study of a consecutive series of 18 patients treated with the Unispacer between June 2003 and August 2004 was carried out to determine the early clinical results of this device. The mean age of the patients was 49 years (40 to 57). A total of eight patients (44%) required revision within two years. In two patients revision to a larger spacer was required, and in six conversion to either a unicompartmental or total knee replacement was needed. At the most recent review 12 patients (66.7%) had a Unispacer remaining in situ. The mean modified visual analogue score for these patients at a mean follow-up of 19 months (12 to 26) was 3.0 (0 to 11.5). The mean pain level was 30% that of the mean pre-operative level of 10. The early clinical results using this device have been disappointing.

This study demonstrates that use of the Unispacer in isolated medial compartment osteoarthritis is associated with a high rate of revision surgery and provides unpredictable relief of pain.