Aims

The purpose is to determine the non-inferiority of a smartphone-based exercise educational care management system after primary knee arthroplasty compared with a traditional in-person physiotherapy rehabilitation model.

Aims. Primary (or spontaneous) and secondary osteonecrosis of the knee can lead to severe joint degeneration, for which either total or unicompartmental arthroplasty may be considered. However, there are limited studies analyzing outcomes of unicompartmental knee arthroplasties (UKAs) for osteonecrosis involving an isolated compartment of the knee. The aims of this study were to analyze outcomes of UKAs for osteonecrosis with specific focus on 1) survivorship free of any revision or reoperation, 2) risk factors for failure, 3) clinical outcomes, and 4) complications. Patients and Methods. A total of 45 patients underwent 46 UKAs for knee osteonecrosis between 2002 and 2014 at our institution (The Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota). Twenty patients (44%) were female; the mean age of the patients was 66 years, and mean body mass index (BMI) was 31 kg/m. 2. Of the 46 UKAs, 44 (96%) were medial UKAs, and 35 (76%) were fixed-bearing design. Mean mechanical axis postoperatively was 1.5° varus (0° to 5° varus); 41 UKAs (89%) were performed for primary osteonecrosis. Mean follow-up was five years (2 to 12). Results. Survivorship free of any revision in the cohort was 89% (95% CI 77 to 99) and 76% (95% CI 53 to 99) at five and ten years, respectively. In patients undergoing UKA for primary osteonecrosis survivorship free of any revision was 93% (95% CI 83 to 100)at both five and ten years. Secondary osteonecrosis was a significant risk factor for poorer survivorship free of any revision or reoperation (hazard ratio 7.7, p = 0.03). Three medial UKAs (6.5%) were converted to total knee arthroplasties (TKAs): two for lateral compartment degeneration and one for development of lateral osteonecrosis. No implants were revised for loosening, fracture, or wear. Knee Society scores improved from a mean of 60 (44 to 72) preoperatively to a mean of 94 postoperatively (82 to 100) (p < 0.001). There were no surgical complications. Conclusion. When done for primary osteonecrosis of the knee, UKA resulted in reliable clinical improvement, minimal complications, and durable estimated implant survivorship free of revision at ten years. UKA done for secondary osteonecrosis was substantially less durable at mid-term follow-up. Progression of knee degeneration, rather than implant failure or loosening, was most common indication for conversion to TKA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:450–4

Aims. An evidence-based radiographic Decision Aid for meniscal-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) has been developed and this study investigates its performance at an independent centre. Patients and Methods. Pre-operative radiographs, including stress views, from a consecutive cohort of 550 knees undergoing arthroplasty (UKA or total knee arthroplasty; TKA) by a single-surgeon were assessed. Suitability for UKA was determined using the Decision Aid, with the assessor blinded to treatment received, and compared with actual treatment received, which was determined by an experienced UKA surgeon based on history, examination, radiographic assessment including stress radiographs, and intra-operative assessment in line with the recommended indications as described in the literature. Results. The sensitivity and specificity of the Decision Aid was 92% and 88%, respectively. Excluding knees where a clear pre-operative plan was made to perform TKA, i.e. patient request, the sensitivity was 93% and specificity 96%. The false-positive rate was low (2.4%) with all affected patients readily identifiable during joint inspection at surgery. In patients meeting Decision Aid criteria and receiving UKA, the five-year survival was 99% (95% confidence intervals (CI) 97 to 100). The false negatives (3.5%), who received UKA but did not meet the criteria, had significantly worse functional outcomes (flexion p < 0.001, American Knee Society Score - Functional p < 0.001, University of California Los Angeles score p = 0.04), and lower implant survival of 93.1% (95% CI 77.6 to 100). Conclusion. The radiographic Decision Aid safely and reliably identifies appropriate patients for meniscal-bearing UKA and achieves good results in this population. The widespread use of the Decision Aid should improve the results of UKA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B(10 Suppl B):3–10

Aims

Uncemented mobile bearing designs in medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) have seen an increase over the last decade. However, there are a lack of large-scale studies comparing survivorship of these specific designs to commonly used cemented mobile and fixed bearing designs. The aim of this study was to evaluate the survivorship of these designs.

Aims

The aim of this meta-analysis is to assess the association between exchange of modular parts in debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR) procedure and outcomes for hip and knee periprosthetic joint infection (PJI).

Aims

Rotating-hinge knee prostheses are commonly used to reconstruct the distal femur after resection of a tumour, despite the projected long-term burden of reoperation due to complications. Few studies have examined the factors that influence their failure and none, to our knowledge, have used competing risk models to do so. The purpose of this study was to determine the risk factors for failure of a rotating-hinge knee distal femoral arthroplasty using the Fine-Gray competing risk model.

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

Aims

Accumulated evidence indicates that local cell origins may ingrain differences in the phenotypic activity of human osteoblasts. We hypothesized that these differences may also exist in osteoblasts harvested from the same bone type at periarticular sites, including those adjacent to the fixation sites for total joint implant components.

Aims

Robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty (RA-TKA) is theoretically more accurate for component positioning than TKA performed with mechanical instruments (M-TKA). Furthermore, the ability to incorporate soft-tissue laxity data into the plan prior to bone resection should reduce variability between the planned polyethylene thickness and the final implanted polyethylene. The purpose of this study was to compare accuracy to plan for component positioning and precision, as demonstrated by deviation from plan for polyethylene insert thickness in measured-resection RA-TKA versus M-TKA.

Aims

The aim of this study was to compare ten-year longitudinal healthcare costs and revision rates for patients undergoing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA).

The February 2015 Knee Roundup. 360 . 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

The June 2015 Knee Roundup360 looks at: Cruciate substituting versus retaining knee replacement; What’s behind the psychology of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction?; Is there a difference in total knee arthroplasty risk of revision in highly crosslinked versus conventional polyethylene?; Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: is age the missing variable?; Satisfaction rates following total knee arthroplasty; Is knee alignment dynamic?; Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: cemented or cementless?; Can revision knee services pay?

Worldwide rates of primary and revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) are rising due to increased longevity of the population and the burden of osteoarthritis. Revision TKA is a technically demanding procedure generating outcomes which are reported to be inferior to those of primary knee arthroplasty, and with a higher risk of complication. Overall, the rate of revision after primary arthroplasty is low, but the number of patients currently living with a TKA suggests a large potential revision healthcare burden. Many patients are now outliving their prosthesis, and consideration must be given to how we are to provide the necessary capacity to meet the rising demand for revision surgery and how to maximise patient outcomes. The purpose of this review was to examine the epidemiology of, and risk factors for, revision knee arthroplasty, and to discuss factors that may enhance patient outcomes. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015; 97-B:723–8

Aims. Periprosthetic fracture is a significant complication of total hip and knee arthroplasty. This study aimed to describe the survival of patients sustaining periprosthetic femoral fractures and compare this with that of the general population, as well as to identify the factors that influence survival. Patients and Methods. A total of 151 patients (women: men 116:35, mean age 74.6 years, standard deviation 11.5) that sustained a periprosthetic fracture between January 2005 and October 2012 were retrospectively analysed. Epidemiological data, comorbidities, type of surgical management, type of implant, and mortality data were studied. Results. The mean survival time was 77 months (95% confidence interval 71 to 84; numbers at risk: 73) and was lower than that of the general population. The risk analyses showed that previous cardiac disease, particularly ischaemic heart disease, cardiac arrhythmias, and heart failure, age over 75 years and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) scores above 3 were associated with a significantly higher mortality. Conclusions. Periprosthetic fractures carry a high risk of post-operative mortality. Our data demonstrate that advanced age (> 75 years) and previous cardiac disease are associated with a significantly higher risk of mortality. The ASA score is an appropriate instrument for risk stratification. Pre-operative cardiac status should be optimised before surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:921–6