The lateral subvastus approach combined with an osteotomy of the tibial tubercle is a recognised, but rarely used approach for total knee replacement (TKR). A total of 32 patients undergoing primary TKR was randomised into two groups, in one of which the lateral subvastus approach combined with a tibial tubercle osteotomy and in the other the medial parapatellar approach were used. The patients were assessed radiologically and clinically using measurement of the range of movement, a visual analogue patient satisfaction score, the Western Ontario McMasters University Osteoarthritis Index and the American Knee Society score. Four patients were lost to the complete follow-up at two years. At two years there were no significant differences between the groups in any of the parameters for clinical outcome. In the lateral approach group there was one complication due to displacement of the tibial tubercle osteotomy and two osteotomies took more than six months to unite. In the medial approach group, one patient had a partial tear of the quadriceps. There was a significantly greater incidence of lateral patellar subluxation in the medial approach group (3 of 12) compared with the lateral approach group (0 of 16) (p = 0.034), but without any apparent clinical detriment. We conclude that the lateral approach with tibial tubercle osteotomy is a safe technique with an outcome comparable with that of the medial parapatellar approach for TKR, but the increased surgical time and its specific complications do not support its routine use. It would seem to be more appropriate to reserve this technique for patients in whom problems with patellar tracking are anticipated

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.

We hypothesised there was no clinical value in using an autologous blood transfusion (ABT) drain in either primary total hip (THR) or total knee replacement (TKR) in terms of limiting allogeneic blood transfusions when a modern restrictive blood management regime was followed. A total of 575 patients (65.2% men), with a mean age of 68.9 years (36 to 94) were randomised in this three-arm study to no drainage (group A), or to wound drainage with an ABT drain for either six hours (group B) or 24 hours (group C). The primary outcome was the number of patients receiving allogeneic blood transfusion. Secondary outcomes were post-operative haemoglobin (Hb) levels, length of hospital stay and adverse events.

This study identified only 41 transfused patients, with no significant difference in distribution between the three groups (p = 0.857). The mean pre-operative haemoglobin (Hb) value in the transfused group was 12.8 g/dL (9.8 to 15.5) versus 14.3 g/dL (10.6 to 18.0) in the non-transfused group (p < 0.001, 95% confidence interval: 1.08 to 1.86). Post-operatively, the median of re-transfused shed blood in patients with a THR was 280 mL (Interquartile range (IQR) 150 to 400) and in TKR patients 500 mL (IQR 350 to 650) (p <  0.001). ABT drains had no effect on the proportion of transfused patients in primary THR and TKR. The secondary outcomes were also comparable between groups.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:765–71.