Aims. The optimal bearing surface design for medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) remains controversial. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes of fixed-bearing (FB) and mobile-bearing (MB) UKAs from a single high-volume institution. Methods. Prospectively collected data were reviewed for all primary cemented medial UKAs performed by seven surgeons from January 2006 to December 2022. A total of 2,999 UKAs were identified, including 2,315 FB and 684 MB cases. The primary outcome measure was implant survival. Secondary outcomes included 90-day and cumulative complications, reoperations, component revisions, conversion arthroplasties, range of motion, and patient-reported outcome measures. Overall mean age at surgery was 65.7 years (32.9 to 94.3), 53.1% (1,593/2,999) of UKAs were implanted in female patients, and demographics between groups were similar (p > 0.05). The mean follow-up for all UKAs was 3.7 years (0.0 to 15.6). Results. Using revision for any reason as an endpoint, five-year survival for FB UKAs was 97.2% (95% CI 96.4 to 98.1) compared to 96.0% for MB (95% CI 94.1 to 97.9; p = 0.008). The FB group experienced fewer component revisions (14/2,315, 0.6% vs 12/684, 1.8%; p < 0.001) and conversion arthroplasties (38/2315, 1.6% vs 24/684, 3.5%; p < 0.001). A greater number of MB UKAs underwent revision due to osteoarthritis progression (FB = 21/2,315, 0.9% vs MB = 16/684, 2.3%; p = 0.003). In the MB group, 12 (1.8%) subjects experienced bearing dislocations which required revision surgery. There were 15 early periprosthetic tibia fractures (0.6%) in the FB group compared to 0 for MB (p = 0.035). Conclusion. In similar patient populations, FB UKAs demonstrated slightly higher survival than a commonly used MB design. Adverse event profiles differed by bearing type, with an increased risk of bearing dislocation and OA progression with MB designs, and early periprosthetic tibia fractures for FB designs. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(9):916–923

Aims. Despite multiple trials and case series on hip hemiarthroplasty designs, guidance is still lacking on which implant to use. One particularly deficient area is long-term outcomes. We present over 1,000 consecutive cemented Thompson’s hemiarthroplasties over a ten-year period, recording all accessible patient and implant outcomes. Methods. Patient identifiers for a consecutive cohort treated between 1 January 2003 and 31 December 2011 were linked to radiographs, surgical notes, clinic letters, and mortality data from a national dataset. This allowed charting of their postoperative course, complications, readmissions, returns to theatre, revisions, and deaths. We also identified all postoperative attendances at the Emergency and Outpatient Departments, and recorded any subsequent skeletal injuries. Results. In total, 1,312 Thompson’s hemiarthroplasties were analyzed (mean age at surgery 82.8 years); 125 complications were recorded, necessitating 82 returns to theatre. These included 14 patients undergoing aspiration or manipulation under anaesthesia, 68 reoperations (5.2%) for debridement and implant retention (n = 12), haematoma evacuation (n = 2), open reduction for dislocation (n = 1), fixation of periprosthetic fracture (n = 5), and 48 revised stems (3.7%), for infection (n = 13), dislocation (n = 12), aseptic loosening (n = 9), persistent pain (n = 6), periprosthetic fracture (n = 4), acetabular erosion (n = 3), and metastatic bone disease (n = 1). Their status at ten years is summarized as follows: 1,180 (89.9%) dead without revision, 34 (2.6%) dead having had revision, 84 (6.6%) alive with the stem unrevised, and 14 (1.1%) alive having had revision. Cumulative implant survivorship was 90.3% at ten years; patient survivorship was 7.4%. Conclusion. The Thompson’s stem demonstrates very low rates of complications requiring reoperation and revision, up to ten years after the index procedure. Fewer than one in ten patients live for ten years after fracture. This study supports the use of a cemented Thompson’s implant as a cost-effective option for frail hip fracture patients. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(9):710–715

Aims. This study aimed to identify the effect of anatomical tibial component (ATC) design on load distribution in the periprosthetic tibial bone of Koreans using finite element analysis (FEA). Methods. 3D finite element models of 30 tibiae in Korean women were created. A symmetric tibial component (STC, NexGen LPS-Flex) and an ATC (Persona) were used in surgical simulation. We compared the FEA measurements (von Mises stress and principal strains) around the stem tip and in the medial half of the proximal tibial bone, as well as the distance from the distal stem tip to the shortest anteromedial cortical bone. Correlations between this distance and FEA measurements were then analyzed. Results. The distance from the distal stem tip to the shortest cortical bone showed no statistically significant difference between implants. However, the peak von Mises stress around the distal stem tip was higher with STC than with ATC. In the medial half of the proximal tibial bone: 1) the mean von Mises stress, maximum principal strain, and minimum principal strain were higher with ATC; 2) ATC showed a positive correlation between the distance and mean von Mises stress; 3) ATC showed a negative correlation between the distance and mean minimum principal strain; and 4) STC showed no correlation between the distance and mean measurements. Conclusion. Implant design affects the load distribution on the periprosthetic tibial bone, and ATC can be more advantageous in preventing stress-shielding than STC. However, under certain circumstances with short distances, the advantage of ATC may be offset. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2022;11(5):252–259

The October 2024 Foot & Ankle Roundup. 360. looks at: Hemiarthroplasty for hallux rigidus; Fixed or mobile-bearing ankle arthroplasty? A meta-analysis; Bone grafting for periprosthetic bone cysts following total ankle arthroplasty; Diabetic foot ulcer after first-ray amputation; Early motion after ankle surgery: the path to faster recovery?; Are podiatrists and orthopaedic surgeons approaching zone 2 fifth metatarsal fractures in the same way?

The August 2024 Research Roundup. 360. looks at: Effect of vitamin D deficiency on periprosthetic joint infection and complications after primary total joint replacement; Postoperative angiotensin receptor blocker use associated with decreased rates of manipulation under anaesthesia in patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty; Central sensitization: the missing link between psychological distress and poor outcome following primary total knee arthroplasty; Thromboprophylaxis for the trauma and orthopaedic surgeon; Life expectancy after treatment of metastatic bone disease: an international trend analysis

The April 2024 Hip & Pelvis Roundup. 360. looks at: Impaction bone grafting for femoral revision hip arthroplasty with the Exeter stem; Effect of preoperative corticosteroids on postoperative glucose control in total joint replacement; Tranexamic acid in patients with a history of venous thromboembolism; Bisphosphonate use may be associated with an increased risk of periprosthetic hip fracture; A balanced approach: exploring the impact of surgical techniques on hip arthroplasty outcomes; A leap forward in hip arthroplasty: dual-mobility bearings reduce groin pain; A new perspective on complications: the link between blood glucose and joint infection risks

The December 2022 Hip & Pelvis Roundup. 360. looks at: Fix and replace: simultaneous fracture fixation and hip arthroplasty for acetabular fractures in older patients; Is the revision rate for femoral neck fracture lower for total hip arthroplasty than for hemiarthroplasty?; Femoral periprosthetic fractures: data from the COMPOSE cohort study; Dual-mobility cups and fracture of the femur; What’s the deal with outcomes for hip and knee arthroplasty outcomes internationally?; Osteochondral lesions of the femoral head: is costal cartilage the answer?

Aims. With increasing burden of revision hip arthroplasty (THA), one of the major challenges is the management of proximal femoral bone loss associated with previous multiple surgeries. Proximal femoral arthroplasty (PFA) has already been popularized for tumour surgeries. Our aim was to describe the outcome of using PFA in these demanding non-neoplastic cases. Methods. A retrospective review of 25 patients who underwent PFA for non-neoplastic indications between January 2009 and December 2015 was undertaken. Their clinical and radiological outcome, complication rates, and survival were recorded. All patients had the Stanmore Implant – Modular Endo-prosthetic Tumour System (METS). Results. At mean follow-up of 5.9 years, there were no periprosthetic fractures. Clearance of infection was achieved in 63.6% of cases. One hip was re-revised to pseudo arthroplasty for deep infection. Instability was noted in eight of the hips (32%), of which seven needed further surgery. Out of these eight hips with instability, five had preoperative infection. Deep infection was noted in five of the hips (20%), of which four were primarily revised for infection. One patient had aseptic loosening of the femoral component and awaits revision surgery. The Kaplan-Meier survivorship free of revision of any component for any reason was 72% (95% confidence interval (CI) 51.3% to 92.7%), and for revisions of only femoral component for any reason was 96% (95% CI 86.3% to 105.7%) at five years. Conclusion. Dislocation and infection remain the major cause for failure, particularly in patients with pre-existing infection. The use of dual mobility cups, silver-coated implants, and less aggressive postoperative rehabilitation regimens would possibly aid in the reduction of complications. PFA performed in patients with periprosthetic fracture seem to fair better. This study supports the judicious use of PFA in non-oncological revision hip arthroplasties, and that they be performed by experienced revision arthroplasty surgeons. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(3):229–235

Aims. Endoprosthetic reconstruction with a distal femoral arthroplasty (DFA) can be used to treat distal femoral bone loss from oncological and non-oncological causes. This study reports the short-term implant survivorship, complications, and risk factors for patients who underwent DFA for non-neoplastic indications. Methods. We performed a retrospective review of 75 patients from a single institution who underwent DFA for non-neoplastic indications, including aseptic loosening or mechanical failure of a previous prosthesis (n = 25), periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) (n = 23), and native or periprosthetic distal femur fracture or nonunion (n = 27). Patients with less than 24 months’ follow-up were excluded. We collected patient demographic data, complications, and reoperations. Reoperation for implant failure was used to calculate implant survivorship. Results. Overall one- and five-year implant survivorship was 87% and 76%, respectively. By indication for DFA, mechanical failure had one- and five-year implant survivorship of 92% and 68%, PJI of 91% and 72%, and distal femur fracture/nonunion of 78% and 70% (p = 0.618). A total of 37 patients (49%) experienced complications and 27 patients (36%) required one or more reoperation. PJI (n = 16, 21%), aseptic loosening (n = 9, 12%), and wound complications (n = 8, 11%) were the most common complications. Component revision (n = 10, 13.3%) and single-stage exchange for PJI (n = 9, 12.0 %) were the most common reoperations. Only younger age was significantly associated with increased complications (mean 67 years (SD 9.1)) with complication vs 71 years (SD 9.9) without complication; p = 0.048). Conclusion. DFA is a viable option for distal femoral bone loss from a range of non-oncological causes, demonstrating acceptable short-term survivorship but with high overall complication rates. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(3):173–181

Periprosthetic joint infection represents a devastating complication after total elbow arthroplasty. Several measures can be implemented before, during, and after surgery to decrease infection rates, which exceed 5%. Debridement with antibiotics and implant retention has been reported to be successful in less than one-third of acute infections, but still plays a role. For elbows with well-fixed implants, staged retention seems to be equally successful as the more commonly performed two-stage reimplantation, both with a success rate of 70% to 80%. Permanent resection or even amputation are occasionally considered. Not uncommonly, a second-stage reimplantation requires complex reconstruction of the skeleton with allografts, and the extensor mechanism may also be deficient. Further developments are needed to improve our management of infection after elbow arthroplasty. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(11):1321–1326

The October 2024 Hip & Pelvis Roundup. 360. looks at: Does the primary surgical approach matter when choosing the approach for revision total hip arthroplasty?; Time to achieve the minimal clinically important difference in primary total hip arthroplasty: comparison of anterior and posterior surgical approaches; To scope or not to scope: arthroscopy as an adjunct to PAO does not provide better clinical outcomes at one year than PAO alone; Re-exploring horizons in hip resurfacing: two-year results of a ceramic-on-ceramic hip resurfacing; Association between tranexamic acid and decreased periprosthetic joint infection risk in patients undergoing total hip and knee arthroplasty; Octogenarians fare well: in revision for infection age is not a bar

The April 2023 Foot & Ankle Roundup. 360. looks at: Outcomes following a two-stage revision total ankle arthroplasty for periprosthetic joint infection; Temporary bridge plate fixation and joint motion after an unstable Lisfranc injury; Outcomes of fusion in type II os naviculare; Total ankle arthroplasty versus arthrodesis for end-stage ankle osteoarthritis; Normal saline for plantar fasciitis: placebo or therapeutic?; Distraction arthroplasty for ankle osteoarthritis: does it work?; Let there be movement: ankle arthroplasty after previous fusion; Morbidity and mortality after diabetic Charcot foot arthropathy

The October 2023 Knee Roundup. 360. looks at: Cementless total knee arthroplasty is associated with more revisions within a year; Kinematically and mechanically aligned total knee arthroplasties: long-term follow-up; Aspirin thromboprophylaxis following primary total knee arthroplasty is associated with a lower rate of early periprosthetic joint infection compared with other agents; The impact of a revision arthroplasty network on patient outcomes; Re-revision knee arthroplasty in a tertiary centre: how does infection impact on outcomes?; Does the knee joint have its own microbiome?; Revision knee surgery provision in Scotland; Aspirin is a safe and effective thromboembolic prophylaxis after total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis; Patellar resurfacing and kneeling ability after total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review

Aims. This study aimed to investigate the optimal sagittal positioning of the uncemented femoral component in total knee arthroplasty to minimize the risk of aseptic loosening and periprosthetic fracture. Methods. Ten different sagittal placements of the femoral component, ranging from -5 mm (causing anterior notch) to +4 mm (causing anterior gap), were analyzed using finite element analysis. Both gait and squat loading conditions were simulated, and Von Mises stress and interface micromotion were evaluated to assess fracture and loosening risk. Results. During gait, varied sagittal positioning did not lead to excessive Von Mises stress or micromotion. However, under squat conditions, posterior positioning (-4 and -5 mm) resulted in stress exceeding 150 MPa at the femoral notch, indicating potential fracture risk. Conversely, +1 mm and 0 mm sagittal positions demonstrated minimal interface micromotion. Conclusion. Slightly anterior sagittal positioning (+1 mm) or neutral positioning (0 mm) effectively reduced stress concentration at the femoral notch and minimized interface micromotion. Thus, these positions are deemed suitable to decrease the risk of aseptic loosening and periprosthetic femoral fracture

The October 2024 Research Roundup. 360. looks at: Fracture risk among stroke survivors according to post-stroke disability status and stroke type; Noise-induced hearing loss: should surgeons be wearing ear protection during primary total joint replacement?; Intravenous dexamethasone in hip arthroscopy can enhance recovery; Patient-reported outcomes following periprosthetic joint infection of the hip and knee: a longitudinal, prospective observational study; When should surgery take place after weight loss?; Which type of surgery is the hardest physically and mentally?

The April 2024 Trauma Roundup. 360. looks at: The infra-acetabular screw in acetabular fracture surgery; Is skin traction helpful in patients with intertrochanteric hip fractures?; Reducing pain and improving function following hip fracture surgery; Are postoperative splints helpful following ankle fracture fixation?; Biomechanics of internal fixation in Hoffa fractures: a comparison of four different constructs; Dual-plate fixation of periprosthetic distal femur fractures; Do direct oral anticoagulants necessarily mean a delay to hip fracture surgery?; Plate or retrograde nail for low distal femur fractures?

The October 2023 Hip & Pelvis Roundup. 360. looks at: Femoroacetabular impingement syndrome at ten years – how do athletes do?; Venous thromboembolism in patients following total joint replacement: are transfusions to blame?; What changes in pelvic sagittal tilt occur 20 years after total hip arthroplasty?; Can stratified care in hip arthroscopy predict successful and unsuccessful outcomes?; Hip replacement into your nineties; Can large language models help with follow-up?; The most taxing of revisions – proximal femoral replacement for periprosthetic joint infection – what’s the benefit of dual mobility?

The April 2023 Research Roundup. 360. looks at: Ear protection for orthopaedic surgeons?; Has arthroscopic meniscectomy use changed in response to the evidence?; Time to positivity of cultures obtained for periprosthetic joint infection; Bisphosphonates for post-COVID-19 osteonecrosis of the femoral head; Missing missed fractures: is AI the answer?; Congenital insensitivity to pain and correction of the knee; YouTube and paediatric elbow injuries

The August 2023 Research Roundup. 360. looks at: Can artificial intelligence improve the readability of patient education materials?; What is the value of radiology input during a multidisciplinary orthopaedic oncology conference?; Periprosthetic joint infection in patients with multiple arthroplasties; Orthopedic Surgery and Anesthesiology Surgical Improvement Strategies Project - Phase III outcomes; Knot tying in arthroplasty and arthroscopy causes lesions to surgical gloves: a potential risk of infection; Vascular calcification of the ankle in plain radiographs equals diabetes mellitus?

The February 2024 Knee Roundup. 360. looks at: Do patients with hypoallergenic total knee arthroplasty implants for metal allergy do worse? An analysis of healthcare utilizations and patient-reported outcome measures; Defining a successful total knee arthroplasty; Incidence, microbiological studies, and factors associated with periprosthetic joint infection after total knee arthroplasty; A modified Delphi consensus statement on patellar instability; Cause for concern? Significant cement coverage in retrieved metaphyseal cones after revision total knee arthroplasty; Prevalence of post-traumatic osteoarthritis after anterior cruciate ligament injury remains high despite advances in surgical techniques; Cost-effectiveness of arthroscopic partial meniscectomy versus physical therapy for traumatic meniscal tears in patients aged under 45 years