The use of robotics in arthroplasty surgery is expanding rapidly as improvements in the technology evolve. This article examines current evidence to justify the usage of robotics, as well as the future potential in this emerging field.

Aims

Knee joint distraction (KJD) is a relatively new, knee-joint preserving procedure with the goal of delaying total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in young and middle-aged patients. We present a randomised controlled trial comparing the two.

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.

Patellar instability most frequently presents during adolescence. Congenital and infantile dislocation of the patella is a distinct entity from adolescent instability and measurable abnormalities may be present at birth. In the normal patellofemoral joint an increase in quadriceps angle and patellar height are matched by an increase in trochlear depth as the joint matures. Adolescent instability may herald a lifelong condition leading to chronic disability and arthritis.

Restoring normal anatomy by trochleoplasty, tibial tubercle transfer or medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL) reconstruction in the young adult prevents further instability. Although these techniques are proven in the young adult, they may cause growth arrest and deformity where the physis is open. A vigorous non-operative strategy may permit delay of surgery until growth is complete. Where non-operative treatment has failed a modified MPFL reconstruction may be performed to maintain stability until physeal closure permits anatomical reconstruction. If significant growth remains an extraosseous reconstruction of the MPFL may impart the lowest risk to the physis. If minor growth remains image intensifier guided placement of femoral intraosseous fixation may impart a small, but acceptable, risk to the physis.

This paper presents and discusses the literature relating to adolescent instability and provides a framework for management of these patients.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:159–70.

Aims

Medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is associated with successful outcomes in carefully selected patient cohorts. We hypothesised that severity and location of patellofemoral cartilage lesions significantly influences functional outcome after Oxford medial compartmental knee arthroplasty.

Objectives

The purpose of this study was to compare the joint space width between one-leg and both-legs standing radiographs in order to diagnose a primary osteoarthritis of the knee.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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 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.

This prospective study reports the 15-year survival and ten-year functional outcome of a consecutive series of 1000 minimally invasive Phase 3 Oxford medial UKAs (818 patients, 393 men, 48%, 425 women, 52%, mean age 66 years; 32 to 88). These were implanted by two surgeons involved with the design of the prosthesis to treat anteromedial osteoarthritis and spontaneous osteonecrosis of the knee, which are recommended indications. Patients were prospectively identified and followed up independently for a mean of 10.3 years (5.3 to 16.6).

At ten years, the mean Oxford Knee Score was 40 (standard deviation (sd) 9; 2 to 48): 79% of knees (349) had an excellent or good outcome. There were 52 implant-related re-operations at a mean of 5.5 years (0.2 to 14.7). The most common reasons for re-operation were arthritis in the lateral compartment (2.5%, 25 knees), bearing dislocation (0.7%, seven knees) and unexplained pain (0.7%, seven knees). When all implant-related re-operations were considered as failures, the ten-year rate of survival was 94% (95% confidence interval (CI) 92 to 96) and the 15-year survival rate 91% (CI 83 to 98). When failure of the implant was the endpoint the 15-year survival was 99% (CI 96 to 100).

This is the only large series of minimally invasive UKAs with 15-year survival data. The results support the continued use of minimally invasive UKA for the recommended indications.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:1493–99.