Using general practitioner records and hospital notes and through direct telephone conversation with patients, we investigated the accuracy of nine patient-reported complications gathered from a self-completed questionnaire after elective joint replacement surgery of the hip and knee. A total of 402 post-discharge complications were reported after 8546 elective operations that were undertaken within a three-year period. These were reported by 136 men and 240 women with a mean age of 71.8 years (34 to 93). A total of 319 reported complications (79.4%; 95% confidence interval 75.4 to 83.3) were confirmed to be correct. High rates of correct reporting were demonstrated for infection (94.5%) and the need for further surgery (100%), whereas the rates of reporting deep-vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction and stroke were lower (75% to 84.2%). Dislocation, peri-prosthetic fractures and nerve palsy had modest rates of correct reporting (36% to 57.1%). More patients who had knee surgery delivered incorrect reports of dislocation (p = 0.001) and DVT (p = 0.013).

Despite these variations, it appears that post-operative complications may form part of a larger patient-reported outcome programme after elective joint replacement surgery.

The April 2014 Knee Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: mobile compression as good as chemical thromboprophylaxis; patellar injury with MIS knee surgery; tibial plateau fracture results not as good as we thought; back and knee pain; metaphyseal sleeves may be the answer in revision knee replacement; oral tranexamic acid; gentamycin alone in antibiotic spacers; and whether the jury is still out on unloader braces.

Total knee replacement (TKR) is one of the most common operations in orthopaedic surgery worldwide. Despite its scientific reputation as mainly successful, only 81% to 89% of patients are satisfied with the final result. Our understanding of this discordance between patient and surgeon satisfaction is limited. In our experience, focus on five major factors can improve patient satisfaction rates: correct patient selection, setting of appropriate expectations, avoiding preventable complications, knowledge of the finer points of the operation, and the use of both pre- and post-operative pathways. Awareness of the existence, as well as the identification of predictors of patient–surgeon discordance should potentially help with enhancing patient outcomes.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B, Supple A:120–3.

The February 2014 Knee Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: whether sham surgery is as good as arthroscopic meniscectomy; distraction in knee osteoarthritis; whether trans-tibial tunnel placement increases the risk of graft failure in ACL surgery; whether joint replacements prevent cardiac events; the size of the pulmonary embolism problem; tranexamic acid and knee replacement haemostasis; matching the demand for knee replacement and follow-up; predicting the length of stay after knee replacement; and popliteal artery injury in TKR.

Satisfaction is increasingly employed as an outcome measure for a successful total knee replacement (TKR). Satisfaction as an outcome measure encompasses many different intrinsic and extrinsic factors related to a person’s experience before and after TKR. The Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Registry has previously demonstrated on a large population study that 17% of TKR recipients are not satisfied with their TKR outcome. This finding has been replicated in other countries. Similar significant factors emerged from these registry studies that are related to satisfaction. It would appear that satisfaction is better after more chronic diseases and whether the TKR results in pain relief or improved function. Importantly, unmet pre-operative expectations are a significant predictor for dissatisfaction following a TKR. It may be possible to improve rates by addressing the issues surrounding pain, function and expectation before embarking on surgery.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B, Supple A:148–52.

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials evaluating the effect of tranexamic acid (TXA) upon blood loss and transfusion in primary total knee replacement. The review used the generic evaluation tool designed by the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group. A total of 19 trials were eligible: 18 used intravenous administration, one also evaluated oral dosing and one trial evaluated topical use. TXA led to a significant reduction in the proportion of patients requiring blood transfusion (risk ratio (RR) 2.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.1 to 3.1, p < 0.001; heterogeneity I² = 75%; 14 trials, 824 patients). Using TXA also reduced total blood loss by a mean of 591 ml (95% CI 536 to 647, p < 0.001; I² = 78%; nine trials, 763 patients). The clinical interpretation of these findings is limited by substantial heterogeneity. However, subgroup analysis of high-dose (> 4 g) TXA showed a plausible consistent reduction in blood transfusion requirements (RR 5.33; 95% CI 2.44 to 11.65, p < 0.001; I² = 0%), a finding that should be confirmed by a further well-designed trial. The current evidence from trials does not support an increased risk of deep-vein thrombosis (13 trials, 801 patients) or pulmonary embolism (18 trials, 971 patients) due to TXA administration.

In an initial randomised controlled trial (RCT) we segregated 180 patients to one of two knee positions following total knee replacement (TKR): six hours of knee flexion using either a jig or knee extension. Outcome measures included post-operative blood loss, fall in haemoglobin, blood transfusion requirements, knee range of movement, limb swelling and functional scores. A second RCT consisted of 420 TKR patients randomised to one of three post-operative knee positions: flexion for three or six hours post-operatively, or knee extension.

Positioning of the knee in flexion for six hours immediately after surgery significantly reduced blood loss (p = 0.002). There were no significant differences in post-operative range of movement, swelling, pain or outcome scores between the various knee positions in either study. Post-operative knee flexion may offer a simple and cost-effective way to reduce blood loss and transfusion requirements following TKR.

We also report a cautionary note regarding the potential risks of prolonged knee flexion for more than six hours observed during clinical practice in the intervening period between the two trials, with 14 of 289 patients (4.7%) reporting lower limb sensory neuropathy at their three-month review.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:201–9.

The February 2014 Research Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: blood supply to the femoral head after dislocation; diabetes and hip replacement; bone remodelling over two decades following hip replacement; sham surgery as good as arthroscopic meniscectomy; distraction in knee osteoarthritis; whether joint replacement prevent cardiac events; tranexamic acid and knee replacement haemostasis; cartilage colonisation in bipolar ankle grafts; CTs and proof of fusion; atorvastatin for muscle re-innervation after sciatic nerve transection; microfracture and short-term pain in cuff repair; promising early results from L-PRF augmented cuff repairs; and fatty degeneration in a rodent model.

Objectives

To define Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) thresholds for the Oxford hip score (OHS) and Oxford knee score (OKS) at mid-term follow-up.

Although it has been suggested that the outcome after revision of a unicondylar knee replacement (UKR) to total knee replacement (TKR) is better when the mechanism of failure is understood, a comparative study on this subject has not been undertaken.

A total of 30 patients (30 knees) who underwent revision of their unsatisfactory UKR to TKR were included in the study: 15 patients with unexplained pain comprised group A and 15 patients with a defined cause for pain formed group B. The Oxford knee score (OKS), visual analogue scale for pain (VAS) and patient satisfaction were assessed before revision and at one year after revision, and compared between the groups.

The mean OKS improved from 19 (10 to 30) to 25 (11 to 41) in group A and from 23 (11 to 45) to 38 (20 to 48) in group B. The mean VAS improved from 7.7 (5 to 10) to 5.4 (1 to 8) in group A and from 7.4 (2 to 9) to 1.7 (0 to 8) in group B. There was a statistically significant difference between the mean improvements in each group for both OKS (p = 0.022) and VAS (p = 0.002). Subgroup analysis in group A, performed in order to define a patient factor that predicts outcome of revision surgery in patients with unexplained pain, showed no pre-operative differences between both subgroups.

These results may be used to inform patients about what to expect from revision surgery, highlighting that revision of UKR to TKR for unexplained pain generally results in a less favourable outcome than revision for a known cause of pain.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:1204–8.

A new generation of knee prostheses has been introduced with the intention of improving post-operative knee flexion. In order to evaluate whether this goal has been achieved we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis. Systematic literature searches were conducted on MEDLINE and EMBASE from their inception to December 2007, and proceedings of scientific meetings were also searched. Only randomised, clinical trials were included in the meta-analysis. The mean difference in the maximum post-operative flexion between the ‘high-flex’ and conventional types of prosthesis was defined as the primary outcome measure. A total of five relevant articles was identified.

Analysis of these trials suggested that no clinically relevant or statistically significant improvement was obtained in flexion with the ‘high-flex’ prostheses. The weighted mean difference was 2.1° (95% confidence interval −0.2 to +4.3; p = 0.07).

Pre-operative variables are increasingly being used to determine eligibility for total knee replacement (TKR). This study was undertaken to evaluate the relationships, interactions and predictive capacity of variables available pre- and post-operatively on patient satisfaction following TKR. Using nationally collected patient reported outcome measures and data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales, we identified 22 798 patients who underwent TKR for osteoarthritis between August 2008 and September 2010. The ability of specific covariates to predict satisfaction was assessed using ordinal logistic regression and structural equational modelling. Only 4959 (22%) of 22 278 patients rated the results of their TKR as ‘excellent’, despite the majority (71%, n = 15 882) perceiving their knee symptoms to be much improved. The strongest predictors of satisfaction were post-operative variables. Satisfaction was significantly and positively related to the perception of symptom improvement (operative success) and the post-operative EuroQol-5D score. While also significant within the models pre-operative variables were less important and had a minimal influence upon post-operative satisfaction. The most robust predictions of satisfaction occurred only when both pre- and post-operative variables were considered together. These findings question the appropriateness of restricting access to care based on arbitrary pre-operative thresholds as these factors have little bearing on post-operative satisfaction.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:1359–65.

Cut-off values with highest sensitivity and specificity for the synovial fluid white cell and differential count will facilitate the accurate diagnosis of infection in total knee (TKR) and total hip replacement (THR). All patients undergoing revision TKR or THR for suspected prosthetic joint infection between 2009 and 2011 at two hospitals were identified. A total of 75 patients were included with a mean age of 70.3 years (38 to 89). Synovial fluid was aspirated pre-operatively and peri-prosthetic tissue samples were taken intra-operatively for histological and microbiological examination.

Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) plots were constructed for white cell and differential counts in aspirated fluid. The optimal cut-off for TKR and THR was 1590 white cells/µl and 65% neutrophilia. The white cell count cut-off value identified for THR was notably lower than previously quoted in the literature. A cut-off value for white cell count in synovial aspirate in suspected prosthetic joint infection of between 1100 and 1700 white cells/µl is likely to be applicable to both THR and TKR.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:554–7.

Structural allografts may be used to manage uncontained bone defects in revision total knee replacement (TKR). However, the availability of cadaver grafts is limited in some areas of Asia. The aim of this study was to evaluate the mid-term outcome of the use of femoral head allografts for the reconstruction of uncontained defects in revision TKR, focusing on complications related to the graft.

We retrospectively reviewed 28 patients (30 TKRs) with Anderson Orthopaedic Research Institute (AORI) type 3 bone defects, who underwent revision using femoral head allografts and stemmed components. The mean number of femoral heads used was 1.7 (1 to 3). The allograft–host junctions were packed with cancellous autograft.

At a mean follow-up of 76 months (38 to 136) the mean American Knee Society knee score improved from 37.2 (17 to 60) pre-operatively to 90 (83 to 100) (p < 0.001). The mean function score improved from 26.5 (0 to 50) pre-operatively to 81 (60 to 100) (p < 0.001). All the grafts healed to the host bone. The mean time to healing of the graft was 6.6 months (4 to 16). There have been no complications of collapse of the graft, nonunion, infection or implant loosening. No revision surgery was required.

The use of femoral head allografts in conjunction with a stemmed component and autogenous bone graft in revision TKR in patients with uncontained bone defects resulted in a high rate of healing of the graft with minimal complications and a satisfactory outcome. Longer follow-up is needed to observe the evolution of the graft.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:643–8.

Using the General Practice Research Database, we examined the temporal changes in the rates of primary total hip (THR) and total knee (TKR) replacement, the age at operation and the female-to-male ratio between 1991 and 2006 in the United Kingdom.

We identified 27 113 patients with THR and 23 843 with TKR. The rate of performance of THR and TKR had increased significantly (p < 0.0001 for both) during the 16-year period and was greater for TKR, especially in the last five years. The mean age at operation was greater for women than for men and had remained stable throughout the period of study. The female-to-male ratio was higher for THR and TKR and had remained stable.

The data support the notion that the rate of joint replacement is increasing in the United Kingdom with the rate of TKR rising at the highest rate. The perception that the mean age for TKR has decreased over time is not supported.

In a randomised controlled pragmatic trial we investigated whether local infiltration analgesia would result in earlier readiness for discharge from hospital after total knee replacement (TKR) than patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) plus femoral nerve block. A total of 45 patients with a mean age of 65 years (49 to 81) received a local infiltration with a peri-articular injection of bupivacaine, morphine and methylprednisolone, as well as adjuvant analgesics. In 45 PCEA+femoral nerve blockade patients with a mean age of 67 years (50 to 84), analgesia included a bupivacaine nerve block, bupivacaine/hydromorphone PCEA, and adjuvant analgesics. The mean time until ready for discharge was 3.2 days (1 to 14) in the local infiltration group and 3.2 days (1.8 to 7.0) in the PCEA+femoral nerve blockade group. The mean pain scores for patients receiving local infiltration were higher when walking (p = 0.0084), but there were no statistically significant differences at rest. The mean opioid consumption was higher in those receiving local infiltration.

The choice between these two analgesic pathways should not be made on the basis of time to discharge after surgery. Most secondary outcomes were similar, but PCEA+femoral nerve blockade patients had lower pain scores when walking and during continuous passive movement. If PCEA+femoral nerve blockade is not readily available, local infiltration provides similar length of stay and similar pain scores at rest following TKR.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:629–35.

The purpose of this study was to undertake a meta-analysis to determine whether there is lower polyethylene wear and longer survival when using mobile-bearing implants in total knee replacement when compared with fixed-bearing implants. Of 975 papers identified, 34 trials were eligible for data extraction and meta-analysis comprising 4754 patients (6861 knees). We found no statistically significant differences between the two designs in terms of the incidence of radiolucent lines, osteolysis, aseptic loosening or survival. There is thus currently no evidence to suggest that the use of mobile-bearing designs reduce polyethylene wear and prolong survival after total knee replacement.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:1057–63.

We evaluated the rates of survival and cause of revision of seven different brands of cemented primary total knee replacement (TKR) in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register during the years 1994 to 2009. Revision for any cause, including resurfacing of the patella, was the primary endpoint. Specific causes of revision were secondary outcomes.

Three posterior cruciate-retaining (PCR) fixed modular-bearing TKRs, two fixed non-modular bearing PCR TKRs and two mobile-bearing posterior cruciate-sacrificing TKRs were investigated in a total of 17 782 primary TKRs. The median follow-up for the implants ranged from 1.8 to 6.9 years. Kaplan-Meier 10-year survival ranged from 89.5% to 95.3%. Cox’s relative risk (RR) was calculated relative to the fixed modular-bearing Profix knee (the most frequently used TKR in Norway), and ranged from 1.1 to 2.6. The risk of revision for aseptic tibial loosening was higher in the mobile-bearing LCS Classic (RR 6.8 (95% confidence interval (CI) 3.8 to 12.1)), the LCS Complete (RR 7.7 (95% CI 4.1 to 14.4)), the fixed modular-bearing Duracon (RR 4.5 (95% CI 1.8 to 11.1)) and the fixed non-modular bearing AGC Universal TKR (RR 2.5 (95% CI 1.3 to 5.1)), compared with the Profix. These implants (except AGC Universal) also had an increased risk of revision for femoral loosening (RR 2.3 (95% CI 1.1 to 4.8), RR 3.7 (95% CI 1.6 to 8.9), and RR 3.4 (95% CI 1.1 to 11.0), respectively). These results suggest that aseptic loosening is related to design in TKR.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:636–42.

We systematically reviewed the published literature on the complications of closing wedge high tibial osteotomy for the treatment of unicompartmental osteoarthritis of the knee. Publications were identified using the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL databases up to February 2012. We assessed randomised (RCTs), controlled group clinical (CCTs) trials, case series in publications associated with closing wedge osteotomy of the tibia in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee and finally a Cochrane review. Many of these trials included comparative studies (opening wedge versus closing wedge) and there was heterogeneity in the studies that prevented pooling of the results.

The Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) is an established treatment option in the management of symptomatic end-stage medial compartmental osteoarthritis (MCOA), which works well in the young and active patient. However, previous studies have shown that it is reliable only in the presence of a functionally intact anterior cruciate ligament (ACL). This review reports the outcomes, at a mean of five years and a maximum of ten years, of 52 consecutive patients with a mean age of 51 years (36 to 57) who underwent staged or simultaneous ACL reconstruction and Oxford UKR. At the last follow-up (with one patient lost to follow-up), the mean Oxford knee score was 41 (sd 6.3; 17 to 48). Two patients required conversion to TKR: one for progression of lateral compartment osteoarthritis and one for infection. Implant survival at five years was 93% (95% CI 83 to 100). All but one patient reported being satisfied with the procedure. The outcome was not significantly influenced by age, gender, femoral or tibial tunnel placement, or whether the procedure was undertaken at one- or two-stages.

In summary, ACL reconstruction and Oxford UKR gives good results in patients with end-stage MCOA secondary to ACL deficiency.