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.

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 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.

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.

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.