The April 2024 Knee Roundup360 looks at: Challenging the status quo: re-evaluating the impact of obesity on unicompartmental knee arthroplasty outcomes; Timing matters: the link between ACL reconstruction delays and cartilage damage; Custom fit or off the shelf: evaluating patient outcomes in tailored versus standard knee replacements; Revolutionizing knee replacement: a comparative study on robotic-assisted and computer-navigated techniques; Pre-existing knee osteoarthritis and severe joint depression are associated with the need for total knee arthroplasty after tibial plateau fracture in patients aged over 60 years; Modern digital therapies?; A matched study on fracture rates following knee replacement surgeries;
This study aimed to investigate patients’ attitudes towards day-case hip and knee arthroplasty and to describe patient characteristics associated with different attitudes, with the purpose of providing an insight into the information requirements for patients that surgeons should address when informing patients about day-case surgery. A total of 5,322 patients scheduled for hip or knee arthroplasty between 2016 and 2022 were included in the study. Preoperatively, patients were asked if they were interested in day-case surgery (‘Yes’, ‘Do not know’, ‘No’). Patient demographics including age, BMI, sex, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) such as the EuroQol five-dimension three-level questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L) were examined within each attitude group. Additionally, changes in attitude were assessed among patients who had completed the questionnaire in association with prior hip or knee arthroplasty.Aims
Methods
The June 2024 Knee Roundup360 looks at: The estimated lifetime risk of revision after primary knee arthroplasty influenced by age, sex, and indication; Should high-risk patients seek out care from high-volume surgeons?; Stability and fracture rates in medial unicondylar knee arthroplasties; Rethinking antibiotic prophylaxis for dental procedures post-arthroplasty; Evaluating DAIR: a viable alternative for acute periprosthetic joint infection; The characteristics and predictors of mortality in periprosthetic fractures around the knee; Patient health-related quality of life deteriorates significantly while waiting six to 12 months for total hip or knee arthroplasty; The importance of looking for diversity in knee implants.
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. 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).Aims
Methods
Cementless knee arthroplasty has seen a recent resurgence in popularity due to conceptual advantages, including improved osseointegration providing biological fixation, increased surgical efficiency, and reduced systemic complications associated with cement impaction and wear from cement debris. Increasingly younger and higher demand patients are requiring knee arthroplasty, and as such, there is optimism cementless fixation may improve implant survivorship and functional outcomes. Compared to cemented implants, the National Joint Registry (NJR) currently reports higher revision rates in cementless total knee arthroplasty (TKA), but lower in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA). However, recent studies are beginning to show excellent outcomes with cementless implants, particularly with UKA which has shown superior performance to cemented varieties. Cementless TKA has yet to show long-term benefit, and currently performs equivalently to cemented in short- to medium-term cohort studies. However, with novel concepts including 3D-printed coatings, robotic-assisted surgery, radiostereometric analysis, and kinematic or functional knee alignment principles, it is hoped they may help improve the outcomes of cementless TKA in the long-term. In addition, though cementless implant costs remain higher due to novel implant coatings, it is speculated cost-effectiveness can be achieved through greater surgical efficiency and potential reduction in revision costs. There is paucity of level one data on long-term outcomes between fixation methods and the cost-effectiveness of modern cementless knee arthroplasty. This review explores recent literature on cementless knee arthroplasty, with regards to clinical outcomes, implant survivorship, complications, and cost-effectiveness; providing a concise update to assist clinicians on implant choice. Cite this article:
Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) has become a popular method of treating knee localized osteoarthritis (OA). Additionally, the posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) is essential to maintaining the physiological kinematics and functions of the knee joint. Considering these factors, the purpose of this study was to investigate the biomechanical effects on PCL-deficient knees in medial UKA. Computational simulations of five subject-specific models were performed for intact and PCL-deficient UKA with tibial slopes. Anteroposterior (AP) kinematics and contact stresses of the patellofemoral (PF) joint and the articular cartilage were evaluated under the deep-knee-bend condition.Aims
Methods
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. 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.Objectives
Methods
The February 2015 Knee Roundup360 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
Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) has
advantages over total knee arthroplasty but national joint registries report
a significantly higher revision rate for UKA. As a result, most
surgeons are highly selective, offering UKA only to a small proportion
(up to 5%) of patients requiring arthroplasty of the knee, and consequently
performing few each year. However, surgeons with large UKA practices
have the lowest rates of revision. The overall size of the practice
is often beyond the surgeon’s control, therefore case volume may
only be increased by broadening the indications for surgery, and
offering UKA to a greater proportion of patients requiring arthroplasty
of the knee. The aim of this study was to determine the optimal UKA usage
(defined as the percentage of knee arthroplasty practice comprised
by UKA) to minimise the rate of revision in a sample of 41 986 records
from the for National Joint Registry for England and Wales (NJR). UKA usage has a complex, non-linear relationship with the rate
of revision. Acceptable results are achieved with the use of 20%
or more. Optimal results are achieved with usage between 40% and
60%. Surgeons with the lowest usage (up to 5%) have the highest
rates of revision. With optimal usage, using the most commonly used
implant, five-year survival is 96% (95% confidence interval (CI)
94.9 to 96.0), compared with 90% (95% CI 88.4 to 91.6) with low
usage (5%) previously considered ideal. The rate of revision of UKA is highest with low usage, implying
the use of narrow, and perhaps inappropriate, indications. The widespread
use of broad indications, using appropriate implants, would give
patients the advantages of UKA, without the high rate of revision. Cite this article:
