Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 2 of 2
Results per page:
The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 104-B, Issue 5 | Pages 613 - 619
2 May 2022
Ackerman IN Busija L Lorimer M de Steiger R Graves SE

Aims

This study aimed to describe the use of revision knee arthroplasty in Australia and examine changes in lifetime risk over a decade.

Methods

De-identified individual-level data on all revision knee arthroplasties performed in Australia from 2007 to 2017 were obtained from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. Population data and life tables were obtained from the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The lifetime risk of revision surgery was calculated for each year using a standardized formula. Separate calculations were undertaken for males and females.


The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery British Volume
Vol. 85-B, Issue 1 | Pages 62 - 67
1 Jan 2003
Price AJ Rees JL Beard D Juszczak E Carter S White S de Steiger R Dodd CAF Gibbons M McLardy-Smith P Goodfellow JW Murray DW

Before proceeding to longer-term studies, we have studied the early clinical results of a new mobile-bearing total knee prosthesis in comparison with an established fixed-bearing device. Patients requiring bilateral knee replacement consented to have their operations under one anaesthetic using one of each prosthesis. They also agreed to accept the random choice of knee (right or left) and to remain ignorant as to which side had which implant. Outcomes were measured using the American Knee Society Score (AKSS), the Oxford Knee Score (OKS), and determination of the range of movement and pain scores before and at one year after operation.

Preoperatively, there was no systematic difference between the right and left knees. One patient died in the perioperative period and one mobile-bearing prosthesis required early revision for dislocation of the meniscal component.

At one year the mean AKSS, OKS and pain scores for the new device were slightly better (p < 0.025) than those for the fixed-bearing device. There was no difference in the range of movement.

We believe that this is the first controlled, blinded trial to compare early function of a new knee prosthesis with that of a standard implant. It demonstrates a small but significant clinical advantage for the mobile-bearing design.