The options for treatment of the young active patient with isolated symptomatic osteoarthritis of the medial compartment and pre-existing deficiency of the anterior cruciate ligament are limited. The potential longevity of the implant and levels of activity of the patient may preclude total knee replacement, and tibial osteotomy and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty are unreliable because of the ligamentous instability. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasties tend to fail because of wear or tibial loosening resulting from eccentric loading. Therefore, we combined reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament with unicompartmental arthroplasty of the knee in 15 patients (ACLR group), and matched them with 15 patients who had undergone Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with an intact anterior cruciate ligament (ACLI group). The clinical and radiological data at a minimum of 2.5 years were compared for both groups. The groups were well matched for age, gender and length of follow-up and had no significant differences in their pre-operative scores. At the last follow-up, the mean outcome scores for both the ACLR and ACLI groups were high (Oxford knee scores of 46 (37 to 48) and 43 (38 to 46), respectively, objective Knee Society scores of 99 (95 to 100) and 94 (82 to 100), and functional Knee Society scores of 96 and 96 (both 85 to 100). One patient in the ACLR group needed revision to a total knee replacement because of infection. No patient in either group had radiological evidence of component loosening. The radiological study showed no difference in the pattern of tibial loading between the groups. The short-term clinical results of combined anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty are excellent. The previous shortcomings of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in the presence of deficiency of the anterior cruciate ligament appear to have been addressed with the combined procedure. This operation seems to be a viable treatment option for young active patients with symptomatic arthritis of the medial compartment, in whom the anterior cruciate ligament has been ruptured

Aims. Limited evidence is available on mid-term outcomes of robotic-arm assisted (RA) partial knee arthroplasty (PKA). Therefore, the purpose of this study was to evaluate mid-term survivorship, modes of failure, and patient-reported outcomes of RA PKA. Methods. A retrospective review of patients who underwent RA PKA between June 2007 and August 2016 was performed. Patients received a fixed-bearing medial or lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA), patellofemoral arthroplasty (PFA), or bicompartmental knee arthroplasty (BiKA; PFA plus medial UKA). All patients completed a questionnaire regarding revision surgery, reoperations, and level of satisfaction. Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Scores (KOOS) were assessed using the KOOS for Joint Replacement Junior survey. Results. Mean follow-up was 4.7 years (2.0 to 10.8). Five-year survivorship of medial UKA (n = 802), lateral UKA (n = 171), and PFA/BiKA (n = 35/10) was 97.8%, 97.7%, and 93.3%, respectively. Component loosening and progression of osteoarthritis (OA) were the most common reasons for revision. Mean KOOS scores after medial UKA, lateral UKA, and PFA/BiKA were 84.3 (SD 15.9), 85.6 (SD 14.3), and 78.2 (SD 14.2), respectively. The vast majority of the patients reported high satisfaction levels after RA PKA. Subgroup analyses suggested tibial component design, body mass index (BMI), and age affects RA PKA outcomes. Five-year survivorship was 98.4% (95% confidence interval (CI) 97.2 to 99.5) for onlay medial UKA (n = 742) and 99.1% (95% CI 97.9 to 100) for onlay medial UKA in patients with a BMI < 30 kg/m. 2. (n = 479). Conclusion. This large single-surgeon study showed high mid-term survivorship, satisfaction levels, and functional outcomes in RA UKA using metal-backed tibial onlay components. In addition, favourable results were reported in RA PFA and BiKA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(1):108–116

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?

There have been several reports of good survivorship and excellent function at ten years with fixed-bearing unicompartmental knee replacement. However, little is known about survival beyond ten years. From the Bristol database of over 4000 knee replacements, we identified 203 St Georg Sled unicompartmental knee replacements (174 patients) which had already survived ten years. The mean age of the patients at surgery was 67.1 years (35.7 to 85) with 67 (38.5%) being under 65 years at the time of surgery. They were reviewed at a mean of 14.8 years (10 to 29.4) from surgery to determine survivorship and function. There were 99 knees followed up for 15 years, 21 for 20 years and four for 25 years. The remainder failed, were withdrawn, or the patient had died. In 58 patients (69 knees) the implant was in situ at the time of death. Revision was undertaken in 16 knees (7.9%) at a mean of 13 years (10.2 to 21.6) after operation. In seven knees (3.4%) this was for progression of arthritis, in three (1.5%) for wear of polyethylene, in four (2%) for tibial loosening, in two (1%) for fracture of the femoral component and in two (1%) for infection. Two knees (1%) were revised for more than one reason. The mean Bristol knee score of the surviving knees fell from 86 (34 to 100) to 79 (42 to 100) during the second decade. Survivorship to 20 years was 85.9% (95% CI 82.9% to 88.9%) and at 25 years was 80% (95% CI 70.2% to 89.8%). Satisfactory survival of a fixed-bearing unicompartmental knee replacement can be achieved into the second decade and beyond

We reviewed the rate of revision of unicompartmental knee replacements (UKR) from the New Zealand Joint Registry between 1999 and 2008. There were 4284 UKRs, of which 236 required revision, 205 to a total knee replacement (U2T) and 31 to a further unicompartmental knee replacement (U2U). We used these data to establish whether the survival and functional outcome for revised UKRs were comparable with those of primary total knee replacement (TKR). The rate of revision for the U2T cohort was four times higher than that for a primary TKR (1.97 vs 0.48; p < 0.05). The mean Oxford Knee Score was also significantly worse in the U2T group than that of the primary TKR group (30.02 vs 37.16; p < 0.01). The rate of revision for conversion of a failed UKR to a further UKR (U2U cohort) was 13 times higher than that for a primary TKR. The poor outcome of a UKR converted to a primary TKR compared with a primary TKR should contra-indicate the use of a UKR as a more conservative procedure in the younger patient

Objectives. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is one surgical option for treating symptomatic medial osteoarthritis. Clinical studies have shown the functional benefits of UKA; however, the optimal alignment of the tibial component is still debated. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of tibial coronal and sagittal plane alignment in UKA on knee kinematics and cruciate ligament tension, using a musculoskeletal computer simulation. Methods. The tibial component was first aligned perpendicular to the mechanical axis of the tibia, with a 7° posterior slope (basic model). Subsequently, coronal and sagittal plane alignments were changed in a simulation programme. Kinematics and cruciate ligament tensions were simulated during weight-bearing deep knee bend and gait motions. Translation was defined as the distance between the most medial and the most lateral femoral positions throughout the cycle. Results. The femur was positioned more medially relative to the tibia, with increasing varus alignment of the tibial component. Medial/lateral (ML) translation was smallest in the 2° varus model. A greater posterior slope posteriorized the medial condyle and increased anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tension. ML translation was increased in the > 7° posterior slope model and the 0° model. Conclusion. The current study suggests that the preferred tibial component alignment is between neutral and 2° varus in the coronal plane, and between 3° and 7° posterior slope in the sagittal plane. Varus > 4° or valgus alignment and excessive posterior slope caused excessive ML translation, which could be related to feelings of instability and could potentially have negative effects on clinical outcomes and implant durability. Cite this article: K. Sekiguchi, S. Nakamura, S. Kuriyama, K. Nishitani, H. Ito, Y. Tanaka, M. Watanabe, S. Matsuda. Bone Joint Res 2019;8:126–135. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.83.BJR-2018-0208.R2

Objectives. Patient-specific (PS) implantation surgical technology has been introduced in recent years and a gradual increase in the associated number of surgical cases has been observed. PS technology uses a patient’s own geometry in designing a medical device to provide minimal bone resection with improvement in the prosthetic bone coverage. However, whether PS unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) provides a better biomechanical effect than standard off-the-shelf prostheses for UKA has not yet been determined, and still remains controversial in both biomechanical and clinical fields. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare the biomechanical effect between PS and standard off-the-shelf prostheses for UKA. Methods. The contact stresses on the polyethylene (PE) insert, articular cartilage and lateral meniscus were evaluated in PS and standard off-the-shelf prostheses for UKA using a validated finite element model. Gait cycle loading was applied to evaluate the biomechanical effect in the PS and standard UKAs. Results. The contact stresses on the PE insert were similar for both the PS and standard UKAs. Compared with the standard UKA, the PS UKA did not show any biomechanical effect on the medial PE insert. However, the contact stresses on the articular cartilage and the meniscus in the lateral compartment following the PS UKA exhibited closer values to the healthy knee joint compared with the standard UKA. Conclusion. The PS UKA provided mechanics closer to those of the normal knee joint. The decreased contact stress on the opposite compartment may reduce the overall risk of progressive osteoarthritis. Cite this article: K-T. Kang, J. Son, D-S. Suh, S. K. Kwon, O-R. Kwon, Y-G. Koh. Patient-specific medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty has a greater protective effect on articular cartilage in the lateral compartment: A Finite Element Analysis. Bone Joint Res 2018;7:20–27. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.71.BJR-2017-0115.R2

Aims

The primary objective of this registry-based study was to compare patient-reported outcomes of cementless and cemented medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) during the first postoperative year. The secondary objective was to assess one- and three-year implant survival of both fixation techniques.

We retrospectively reviewed 35 cemented unicompartmental knee replacements performed for medial unicompartmental osteoarthritis of the knee in 31 patients ≤50 years old (mean 46, 31 to 49). Patients were assessed clinically and radiologically using the Knee Society scores at a mean follow-up of 9.7 years (5 to 16) and survival at 12 years was calculated. The mean Knee Society Function Score improved from 54 points (25 to 64) pre-operatively to 89 (80 to 100) post-operatively (p < 0.0001). Six knees required revision, four for polyethylene wear treated with an isolated exchange of the tibial insert, one for aseptic loosening and one for progression of osteoarthritis. The 12-year survival according to Kaplan-Meier was 80.6% with revision for any reason as the endpoint. Despite encouraging clinical results, polyethylene wear remains a major concern affecting the survival of unicompartmental knee replacement in patients younger than 50

Aims

Robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (R-UKA) has been proposed as an approach to improve the results of the conventional manual UKA (C-UKA). The aim of this meta-analysis was to analyze the studies comparing R-UKA and C-UKA in terms of clinical outcomes, radiological results, operating time, complications, and revisions.

Aims

The primary aim of this prospective, multicentre study is to describe the rates of returning to golf following hip, knee, ankle, and shoulder arthroplasty in an active golfing population. Secondary aims will include determining the timing of return to golf, changes in ability, handicap, and mobility, and assessing joint-specific and health-related outcomes following surgery.

Aims

Treatment of end-stage anteromedial osteoarthritis (AMOA) of the knee is commonly approached using one of two surgical strategies: medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) or total knee arthroplasty (TKA). In this study we aim to investigate if there is any difference in outcome for patients undergoing UKA or TKA, when treated by high-volume surgeons, in high-volume centres, using two different clinical guidelines. The two strategies are ‘UKA whenever possible’ vs TKA for all patients with AMOA.

Aims. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) has been successfully performed in the United States healthcare system on outpatients. Despite differences in healthcare structure and financial environment, we hypothesised that it would be feasible to replicate this success and perform UKA with safe day of surgery discharge within the NHS, in the United Kingdom. This has not been reported in any other United Kingdom centres. Patients and Methods. We report our experience of implementing a pathway to allow safe day of surgery discharge following UKA. Data were prospectively collected on 72 patients who underwent UKA as a day case between December 2011 and September 2015. . Results. A total of 61 patients (85%) were discharged on the same day. The most common reason for failure was logistical; five patients had their operation too late in the day. Three patients failed to mobilise safely, two had inadequate control of pain and one had a leaking wound. The mean length of stay for those who were not discharged on the same day was 1.2 nights (1 to 3). During the same time, 58 patients underwent planned inpatient UKA, as they were deemed inappropriate for discharge on the day of surgery. However, three of these were safely discharged on the same day. Follow-up data, 24 hours post-operatively, were available for 70 patients; 51 (73%) reported no or mild pain, 14 (20%) had moderate pain and five (7%) had severe pain. There were no re-admissions. All patients had a high level of satisfaction. Conclusion. We found that patients can be safely and effectively discharged on the day of surgery after UKA, with high levels of satisfaction. This clearly offers improved management of resources and financial savings to healthcare trusts. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:788–92

Objectives. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is a potential treatment for isolated bone on bone osteoarthritis when limited to a single compartment. The risk for revision of UKA is three times higher than for total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The aim of this review was to discuss the different revision options after UKA failure. Materials and Methods. A search was performed for English language articles published between 2006 and 2016. After reviewing titles and abstracts, 105 papers were selected for further analysis. Of these, 39 papers were deemed to contain clinically relevant data to be included in this review. Results. The most common reasons for failure are liner dislocation, aseptic loosening, disease progression of another compartment and unexplained pain. . UKA can be revised to or with another UKA if the failure mode allows reconstruction of the joint with UKA components. In case of disease progression another UKA can be added, either at the patellofemoral joint or at the remaining tibiofemoral joint. Often the accompanying damage to the knee joint doesn’t allow these two former techniques resulting in a primary TKA. In a third of cases, revision TKA components are necessary. This is usually on the tibial side where augments and stems might be required. Conclusions. In case of failure of UKA, several less invasive revision techniques remain available to obtain primary results. Revision in a late stage of failure or because of surgical mistakes might ask for the use of revision components limiting the clinical outcome for the patients. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B(1 Supple A):65–9

Aims

The metabolic equivalent of task (MET) score examines patient performance in relation to energy expenditure before and after knee arthroplasty. This study assesses its use in a knee arthroplasty population in comparison with the widely used Oxford Knee Score (OKS) and EuroQol five-dimension index (EQ-5D), which are reported to be limited by ceiling effects.

Aims

Revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) is a technically challenging and costly procedure. It is well-documented that primary TKA (pTKA) have better survivorship than rTKA; however, we were unable to identify any studies explicitly investigating previous rTKA as a risk factor for failure following rTKA. The purpose of this study is to compare the outcomes following rTKA between patients undergoing index rTKA and those who had been previously revised.

Aims

Periprosthetic fractures (PPFs) around the knee are challenging injuries. This study aims to describe the characteristics of knee PPFs and the impact of patient demographics, fracture types, and management modalities on in-hospital mortality.

The December 2014 Knee Roundup. 360 . looks at: national guidance on arthroplasty thromboprophylaxis is effective; unicompartmental knee replacement has the edge in terms of short-term complications; stiff knees, timing and manipulation; neuropathic pain and total knee replacement; synovial fluid α-defensin and CRP: a new gold standard in joint infection diagnosis?; how to assess anterior knee pain?; where is the evidence? Five new implants under the spotlight; and a fresh look at ACL reconstruction

Literature surrounding artificial intelligence (AI)-related applications for hip and knee arthroplasty has proliferated. However, meaningful advances that fundamentally transform the practice and delivery of joint arthroplasty are yet to be realized, despite the broad range of applications as we continue to search for meaningful and appropriate use of AI. AI literature in hip and knee arthroplasty between 2018 and 2021 regarding image-based analyses, value-based care, remote patient monitoring, and augmented reality was reviewed. Concerns surrounding meaningful use and appropriate methodological approaches of AI in joint arthroplasty research are summarized. Of the 233 AI-related orthopaedics articles published, 178 (76%) constituted original research, while the rest consisted of editorials or reviews. A total of 52% of original AI-related research concerns hip and knee arthroplasty (n = 92), and a narrative review is described. Three studies were externally validated. Pitfalls surrounding present-day research include conflating vernacular (“AI/machine learning”), repackaging limited registry data, prematurely releasing internally validated prediction models, appraising model architecture instead of inputted data, withholding code, and evaluating studies using antiquated regression-based guidelines. While AI has been applied to a variety of hip and knee arthroplasty applications with limited clinical impact, the future remains promising if the question is meaningful, the methodology is rigorous and transparent, the data are rich, and the model is externally validated. Simple checkpoints for meaningful AI adoption include ensuring applications focus on: administrative support over clinical evaluation and management; necessity of the advanced model; and the novelty of the question being answered.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(12):1292–1303.