Aims. The aim of this study was to describe the pattern of revision indications for unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and any change to this pattern for UKA patients over the last 20 years, and to investigate potential associations to changes in surgical practice over time. Methods. All primary knee arthroplasty surgeries performed due to primary osteoarthritis and their revisions reported to the Danish Knee Arthroplasty Register from 1997 to 2017 were included. Complex surgeries were excluded. The data was linked to the National Patient Register and the Civil Registration System for comorbidity, mortality, and emigration status. TKAs were propensity score matched 4:1 to UKAs. Revision risks were compared using competing risk Cox proportional hazard regression with a shared γ frailty component. Results. Aseptic loosening (loosening) was the most common revision indication for both UKA (26.7%) and TKA (29.5%). Pain and disease progression accounted for 54.6% of the remaining UKA revisions. Infections and instability accounted for 56.1% of the remaining TKA revision. The incidence of revision due to loosening or pain decreased over the last decade, being the second and third least common indications in 2017. There was a decrease associated with fixation method for pain (hazard ratio (HR) 0.40; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 0.94) and loosening (HR 0.29; 95% CI 0.10 to 0.81) for cementless compared to cemented, and units UKA usage for pain (HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.91), and loosening (HR 0.51; 95% CI 0.37 to 0.70) for high usage. Conclusion. The overall revision patterns for UKA and TKA for the last 20 years are comparable to previous published patterns. We found large changes to UKA revision patterns in the last decade, and with the current surgical practice, revision due to pain or loosening are significantly less likely. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(12):923–931

Aims. The outcome of repeat septic revision after a failed one-stage exchange for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) remains unknown. The aim of this study was to report the infection-free and all-cause revision-free survival of repeat septic revision after a failed one-stage exchange, and to determine whether the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) stage is associated with subsequent infection-related failure. Methods. We retrospectively reviewed all repeat septic revision TKAs which were undertaken after a failed one-stage exchange between 2004 and 2017. A total of 33 repeat septic revisions (29 one-stage and four two-stage) met the inclusion criteria. The mean follow-up from repeat septic revision was 68.2 months (8.0 months to 16.1 years). The proportion of patients who had a subsequent infection-related failure and all-cause revision was reported and Kaplan-Meier survival for these endpoints was determined. Patients were categorized according to the MSIS staging system, and the association with subsequent infection was analyzed. Results. At the most recent follow-up, 17 repeat septic revisions (52%) had a subsequent infection-related failure and the five-year infection-free survival was 59% (95% confidence interval (CI) 39 to 74). A total of 19 underwent a subsequent all-cause revision (58%) and the five-year all-cause revision-free survival was 47% (95% CI 28 to 64). The most common indication for the first subsequent aseptic revision was loosening. The MSIS stage of the host status (p = 0.663) and limb status (p = 1.000) were not significantly associated with subsequent infection-related failure. Conclusion. Repeat septic revision after a failed one-stage exchange TKA for PJI is associated with a high rate of subsequent infection-related failure and all-cause revision. Patients should be counselled appropriately to manage expectations. The host and limb status according to the MSIS staging system were not associated with subsequent infection-related failure. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(3):386–393

Aims. The aim of this study was to identify variables associated with time to revision, demographic details associated with revision indication, and type of prosthesis employed, and to describe the survival of hinge knee arthroplasty (HKA) when used for first-time knee revision surgery and factors that were associated with re-revision. Methods. Patient demographic details, BMI, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, indication for revision, surgical approach, surgeon grade, implant type (fixed and rotating), time of revision from primary implantation, and re-revision if undertaken were obtained from the National Joint Registry data for England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the Isle of Man over an 18-year period (2003 to 2021). Results. There were 3,855 patient episodes analyzed with a median age of 73 years (interquartile range (IQR) 66 to 80), and the majority were female (n = 2,480, 64.3%). The median time to revision from primary knee arthroplasty was 1,219 days (IQR 579 to 2,422). Younger age (p < 0.001), decreasing ASA grade (p < 0.001), and indications for revision of sepsis (p < 0.001), unexplained pain (p < 0.001), non-polyethylene wear (p < 0.001), and malalignment (p < 0.001) were all associated with an earlier time to revision from primary implantation. The median follow-up was 4.56 years (range 0.00 to 17.52), during which there were 410 re-revisions. The overall unadjusted probability of re-revision for all revision HKAs at one, five, and ten years after surgery were 2.7% (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.2 to 3.3), 10.7% (95% CI 9.6 to 11.9), and 16.2% (95% CI 14.5 to 17.9), respectively. Male sex (p < 0.001), younger age (p < 0.001), revision for septic indications (p < 0.001) or implant fracture (p = 0.010), a fixed hinge (p < 0.001), or surgery performed by a non-consultant grade (p = 0.023) were independently associated with an increased risk of re-revision. Conclusion. There were several factors associated with time to first revision. The re-revision rate was 16.2% at ten years; however, the risk factors associated with an increased risk of re-revision could be used to counsel patients regarding their outcome. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(1):47–55

Aims. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) has a higher risk of revision than total knee arthroplasty (TKA), particularly for younger patients. The outcome of knee arthroplasty is typically defined as implant survival or revision incidence after a defined number of years. This can be difficult for patients to conceptualize. We aimed to calculate the ‘lifetime risk’ of revision for UKA as a more meaningful estimate of risk projection over a patient’s remaining lifetime, and to compare this to TKA. Methods. Incidence of revision and mortality for all primary UKAs performed from 1999 to 2019 (n = 13,481) was obtained from the New Zealand Joint Registry (NZJR). Lifetime risk of revision was calculated for patients and stratified by age, sex, and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade. Results. The lifetime risk of revision was highest in the youngest age group (46 to 50 years; 40.4%) and decreased sequentially to the oldest (86 to 90 years; 3.7%). Across all age groups, lifetime risk of revision was higher for females (ranging from 4.3% to 43.4% vs males 2.9% to 37.4%) and patients with a higher ASA grade (ASA 3 to 4, ranging from 8.8% to 41.2% vs ASA 1 1.8% to 29.8%). The lifetime risk of revision for UKA was double that of TKA across all age groups (ranging from 3.7% to 40.4% for UKA, and 1.6% to 22.4% for TKA). The higher risk of revision in younger patients was associated with aseptic loosening in both sexes and pain in females. Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) accounted for 4% of all UKA revisions, in contrast with 27% for TKA; the risk of PJI was higher for males than females for both procedures. Conclusion. Lifetime risk of revision may be a more meaningful measure of arthroplasty outcomes than implant survival at defined time periods. This study highlights the higher lifetime risk of UKA revision for younger patients, females, and those with a higher ASA grade, which can aid with patient counselling prior to UKA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(6):672–679

Aims. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) has higher revision rates than total knee arthroplasty (TKA). As revision of UKA may be less technically demanding than revision TKA, UKA patients with poor functional outcomes may be more likely to be offered revision than TKA patients with similar outcomes. The aim of this study was to compare clinical thresholds for revisions between TKA and UKA using revision incidence and patient-reported outcomes, in a large, matched cohort at early, mid-, and late-term follow-up. Methods. Analyses were performed on propensity score-matched patient cohorts of TKAs and UKAs (2:1) registered in the New Zealand Joint Registry between 1 January 1999 and 31 December 2019 with an Oxford Knee Score (OKS) response at six months (n, TKA: 16,774; UKA: 8,387), five years (TKA: 6,718; UKA: 3,359), or ten years (TKA: 3,486; UKA: 1,743). Associations between OKS and revision within two years following the score were examined. Thresholds were compared using receiver operating characteristic analysis. Reasons for aseptic revision were compared using cumulative incidence with competing risk. Results. Fewer TKA patients with ‘poor’ outcomes (≤ 25) subsequently underwent revision compared with UKA at six months (5.1% vs 19.6%; p < 0.001), five years (4.3% vs 12.5%; p < 0.001), and ten years (6.4% vs 15.0%; p = 0.024). Compared with TKA, the relative risk for UKA was 2.5-times higher for ‘unknown’ reasons, bearing dislocations, and disease progression. Conclusion. Compared with TKA, more UKA patients with poor outcomes underwent revision from early to long-term follow-up, and were more likely to undergo revision for ‘unknown’ reasons, which suggest a lower clinical threshold for UKA. For UKA, revision risk was higher for bearing dislocations and disease progression. There is supporting evidence that the higher revision UKA rates are associated with lower clinical thresholds for revision and additional modes of failure. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(3):269–276

Aims. Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a challenging complication of any arthroplasty procedure. We reviewed our use of static antibiotic-loaded cement spacers (ABLCSs) for staged management of PJI where segmental bone loss, ligamentous instability, or soft-tissue defects necessitate a static construct. We reviewed factors contributing to their failure and techniques to avoid these complications when using ABLCSs in this context. Methods. A retrospective analysis was conducted of 94 patients undergoing first-stage revision of an infected knee prosthesis between September 2007 and January 2020 at a single institution. Radiographs and clinical records were used to assess and classify the incidence and causes of static spacer failure. Of the 94 cases, there were 19 primary total knee arthroplasties (TKAs), ten revision TKAs (varus-valgus constraint), 20 hinged TKAs, one arthrodesis (nail), one failed spacer (performed elsewhere), 21 distal femoral endoprosthetic arthroplasties, and 22 proximal tibial arthroplasties. Results. A total of 35/94 patients (37.2%) had spacer-related complications, of which 26/35 complications (74.3%) were because of mechanical failure of the spacer construct, while 9/35 (25.7%) were due to recurrence of infection. Risk factors for internal failure were a construct where the total intramedullary spacer length was less than twice the length of the central osseous defect (p = 0.009), where proximal or distal intraosseous spacer contact was < 10%, and after tibial tubercle osteotomy (p = 0.005). The incidence of spacer complications significantly increased the time to second stage: mean 157 days (42 to 458) in those without complications versus 227 days (11 to 528) with complications (p = 0.014). Conclusion. The failure rate of static antibiotic-loaded cement spacers is much higher than anticipated. Complications of the spacer significantly increased the time to second-stage revision. The risk of mechanical failure is significantly increased if the spacer is less than double the size of the segmental defect, or if inadequate reinforcement is inserted into the residual bone. These findings serve as a guide for surgeons to avoid mechanical complications with static spacers. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(10):1067–1073

Aims. The success of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is usually measured using functional outcome scores and revision-free survivorship. However, reporting the lifetime risk of revision may be more meaningful to patients when gauging risks, especially in younger patients. We aimed to assess the lifetime risk of revision for patients in different age categories at the time of undergoing primary TKA. Methods. The New Zealand Joint Registry database was used to obtain revision rates, mortality, and the indications for revision for all primary TKAs performed during an 18-year period between January 1999 and December 2016. Patients were stratified into age groups at the time of the initial TKA, and the lifetime risk of revision was calculated according to age, sex, and the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade. The most common indications for revision were also analyzed for each age group. Results. The overall ten-year survival rate was 95.6%. This was lowest in the youngest age group (between 46 and 50 years) and increased sequentially with increasing age. The lifetime risk of requiring revision was 22.4% in those aged between 46 and 50 years at the time of the initial surgery, and decreased linearly with increasing age to 1.15% in those aged between 90 and 95 years at the time of surgery. Higher ASA grades were associated with increased lifetime risk of revision in all age groups. The three commonest indications for revision were aseptic loosening, infection, and unexplained pain. Young males, aged between 46 and 50 years, had the highest lifetime risk of revision (25.2%). Conclusion. Lifetime risk of revision may be a more meaningful measure of outcome than implant survival at defined time periods when counselling patients prior to TKA. This study highlights the considerably higher lifetime risk of revision surgery for all indications, including infection, in younger male patients. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(2):235–241

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. Results. In total, 43,188 revision knee arthroplasty procedures were performed in Australia during the study period, with a median age at surgery of 69 years (interquartile range (IQR) 62 to 76). In 2017, revision knee arthroplasty rates were highest for males aged 70 to 79 years (102.9 procedures per 100,000 population). Lifetime risk of revision knee arthroplasty for females increased slightly from 1.61% (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.53% to 1.69%) in 2007 to 2.22% (95% CI 2.13% to 2.31%) in 2017. A similar pattern was evident for males, with a lifetime risk of 1.43% (95% CI 1.36% to 1.51%) in 2007 and 2.02% (95% CI 1.93% to 2.11%) in 2017. A decline in procedures performed for loosening/lysis (from 41% in 2007 to 24% in 2017) and pain (from 14% to 9%) was evident, while infection became an increasingly common indication (from 19% in 2007 to 29% in 2017). Conclusion. Well-validated national registry data can help us understand the epidemiology of revision knee arthroplasty, including changing clinical indications. Despite a small increase over a decade, the lifetime risk of revision knee arthroplasty in Australia is low at one in 45 females and one in 50 males. These methods offer a population-level approach to quantifying revision burden that can be used for ongoing national surveillance and between-country comparisons. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(5):613–619

Aims. The aim of this study was to assess factors associated with the estimated lifetime risk of revision surgery after primary knee arthroplasty (KA). Methods. All patients from the Scottish Arthroplasty Project dataset undergoing primary KA during the period 1 January 1998 to 31 December 2019 were included. The cumulative incidence function for revision and death was calculated up to 20 years. Adjusted analyses used cause-specific Cox regression modelling to determine the influence of patient factors. The lifetime risk was calculated as a percentage for patients aged between 45 and 99 years using multiple-decrement life table methodology. Results. The estimated lifetime risk of revision ranged between 32.7% (95% confidence interval (CI) 22.6 to 47.3) for patients aged 45 to 49 years and 0.6% (95% CI 0.1 to 4.5) for patients aged over 90 years. At 20 years, the overall cumulative incidence of revision (6.8% (95% CI 6.6 to 7.0)) was significantly less than that of death (66.3% (95% CI 65.4 to 67.1)). Adjusted analyses demonstrated converse effect of increasing age on risk of revision (hazard ratio (HR) 0.5 (95% CI 0.5 to 0.6)) and death (HR 3.6 (95% CI 3.4 to 3.7)). Male sex was associated with increased risks of revision (HR 1.1 (95% CI 1.1 to 1.2); p < 0.001) and death (HR 1.4 (95% CI 1.3 to 1.4); p < 0.001). Compared to patients undergoing primary KA for osteoarthritis, patients with inflammatory arthropathy had a higher risk of death (HR 1.7 (95% CI 1.7 to 1.8); p < 0.001), but were less likely to be revised (HR 0.9 (95% CI 0.7 to 1.0); p < 0.001). Patients with a greater number of comorbidities (HR 1.4 (95% CI 1.3 to 1.4)) and greater levels of socioeconomic deprivation (HR 1.4 (95% CI 1.4 to 1.5)) were at increased risk of death, but neither increased the risk of revision. Conclusion. The estimated lifetime risk of revision KA varied depending on patient sex, age, and underlying diagnosis. Patients aged between 45 and 49 years had a one in three risk of undergoing revision surgery within their lifetime, which decreased with age to one in 159 in those aged 90 years or more. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(12):1313–1322

Aims. In the last decade, perioperative advancements have expanded the use of outpatient primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Despite this, there remains limited data on expedited discharge after revision TKA. This study compared 30-day readmissions and reoperations in patients undergoing revision TKA with a hospital stay greater or less than 24 hours. The authors hypothesized that expedited discharge in select patients would not be associated with increased 30-day readmissions and reoperations. Methods. Aseptic revision TKAs in the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database were reviewed from 2013 to 2020. TKAs were stratified by length of hospital stay (greater or less than 24 hours). Patient demographic details, medical comorbidities, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, operating time, components revised, 30-day readmissions, and reoperations were compared. Multivariate analysis evaluated predictors of discharge prior to 24 hours, 30-day readmission, and reoperation. Results. Of 21,610 aseptic revision TKAs evaluated, 530 were discharged within 24 hours. Short-stay patients were younger (63.1 years (49 to 78) vs 65.1 years (18 to 94)), with lower BMI (32.3 kg/m. 2. (17 to 47) vs 33.6 kg/m. 2. (19 to 54) and lower ASA grades. Diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hypertension, and cancer were all associated with a hospital stay over 24 hours. Single component revisions (56.8% (n = 301) vs 32.4% (n = 6,823)), and shorter mean operating time (89.7 minutes (25 to 275) vs 130.2 minutes (30 to 517)) were associated with accelerated discharge. Accelerated discharge was not associated with 30-day readmission and reoperation. Conclusion. Accelerated discharge after revision TKA did not increase short-term complications, readmissions, or reoperations. Further efforts to decrease hospital stays in this setting should be evaluated. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(12):1323–1328

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. Methods. This retrospective, observational study reviewed patients who underwent unilateral, aseptic rTKA at an academic orthopaedic speciality hospital between June 2011 and April 2020 with > one-year of follow-up. Patients were dichotomized based on whether this was their first revision procedure or not. Patient demographics, surgical factors, postoperative outcomes, and re-revision rates were compared between the groups. Results. A total of 663 cases were identified (486 index rTKAs and 177 multiply revised TKAs). There were no differences in demographics, rTKA type, or indication for revision. Multiply revised patients had significantly longer rTKA operative times (p < 0.001), and were more likely to be discharged to an acute rehabilitation centre (6.2% vs 4.5%) or skilled nursing facility (29.9% vs 17.5%; p = 0.003). Patients who had been multiply revised were also significantly more likely to have subsequent reoperation (18.1% vs 9.5%; p = 0.004) and re-revision (27.1% vs 18.1%; p = 0.013). The number of previous revisions did not correlate with the number of subsequent reoperations (r = 0.038; p = 0.670) or re-revisions (r = −0.102; p = 0.251). Conclusion. Multiply revised TKA had worse outcomes, with higher rates of facility discharge, longer operative times, and greater reoperation and re-revision rates compared to index rTKA. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(5):393–398

Aims. The aim of this study was to determine the long-term mortality rate, and to identify factors associated with this, following primary and revision knee arthroplasty (KA). Methods. Data from the Scottish Arthroplasty Project (1998 to 2019) were retrospectively analyzed. Patient mortality data were linked from the National Records of Scotland. Analyses were performed separately for the primary and revised KA cohorts. The standardized mortality ratio (SMR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated for the population at risk. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards were used to identify predictors and estimate relative mortality risks. Results. At a median 7.4 years (interquartile range (IQR) 4.0 to 11.6) follow-up, 27.8% of primary (n = 27,474/98,778) and 31.3% of revision (n = 2,611/8,343) KA patients had died. Both primary and revision cohorts had lower mortality rates than the general population (SMR 0.74 (95% CI 0.73 to 0.74); p < 0.001; SMR 0.83 (95% CI 0.80 to 0.86); p < 0.001, respectively), which persisted for 12 and eighteight years after surgery, respectively. Factors associated with increased risk of mortality after primary KA included male sex (hazard ratio (HR) 1.40 (95% CI 1.36 to 1.45)), increasing socioeconomic deprivation (HR 1.43 (95% CI 1.36 to 1.50)), inflammatory polyarthropathy (HR 1.79 (95% CI 1.68 to 1.90)), greater number of comorbidities (HR 1.59 (95% CI 1.51 to 1.68)), and periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) requiring revision (HR 1.92 (95% CI 1.57 to 2.36)) when adjusting for age. Similarly, male sex (HR 1.36 (95% CI 1.24 to 1.49)), increasing socioeconomic deprivation (HR 1.31 (95% CI 1.12 to 1.52)), inflammatory polyarthropathy (HR 1.24 (95% CI 1.12 to 1.37)), greater number of comorbidities (HR 1.64 (95% CI 1.33 to 2.01)), and revision for PJI (HR 1.35 (95% 1.18 to 1.55)) were independently associated with an increased risk of mortality following revision KA when adjusting for age. Conclusion. The SMR of patients undergoing primary and revision KA was lower than that of the general population and remained so for several years post-surgery. However, approximately one in four patients undergoing primary and one in three patients undergoing revision KA died within tenten years of surgery. Several patient and surgical factors, including PJI, were associated with the risk of mortality within ten years of primary and revision surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(1):45–52

Aims. Achievement of accurate microbiological diagnosis prior to revision is key to reducing the high rates of persistent infection after revision knee surgery. The effect of change in the microorganism between the first- and second-stage revision of total knee arthroplasty for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) on the success of management is not clear. Methods. A two-centre retrospective cohort study was conducted to review the outcome of patients who have undergone two-stage revision for treatment of knee arthroplasty PJI, focusing specifically on isolated micro-organisms at both the first- and second-stage procedure. Patient demographics, medical, and orthopaedic history data, including postoperative outcomes and subsequent treatment, were obtained from the electronic records and medical notes. Results. The study cohort consisted of 84 patients, of whom 59.5% (n = 50) had successful eradication of their infection at a mean follow-up of 4.7 years. For the 34 patients who had recurrence of infection, 58.8% (n = 20) had a change in isolated organism, compared to 18% (n = 9) in the infection eradication group (p < 0.001). When adjusting for confound, there was no association when the growth on the second stage was the same as the first (odd ratio (OR) 2.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 12.50; p = 0.269); however, when a different organism was identified at the second stage, this was independently associated with failure of treatment (OR 8.40, 95% CI 2.91 to 24.39; p < 0.001). There were no other significant differences between the two cohorts with regard to patient demographics or type of organisms isolated. Conclusion. Change in the identified microorganism between first- and second-stage revision for PJI was associated with failure of management. Identification of this change in the microorganism prior to commencement of the second stage may help target antibiotic management and could improve the success of surgery in these patients. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(9):720–727

Aims. Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a devastating complication following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Two-stage revision has traditionally been considered the gold standard of treatment for established infection, but increasing evidence is emerging in support of one-stage exchange for selected patients. The objective of this study was to determine the outcomes of single-stage revision TKA for PJI, with mid-term follow-up. Methods. A total of 84 patients, with a mean age of 68 years (36 to 92), underwent single-stage revision TKA for confirmed PJI at a single institution between 2006 and 2016. In all, 37 patients (44%) were treated for an infected primary TKA, while the majority presented with infected revisions: 31 had undergone one previous revision (36.9%) and 16 had multiple prior revisions (19.1%). Contraindications to single-stage exchange included systemic sepsis, extensive bone or soft-tissue loss, extensor mechanism failure, or if primary wound closure was unlikely to be achievable. Patients were not excluded for culture-negative PJI or the presence of a sinus. Results. Overall, 76 patients (90.5%) were infection-free at a mean follow-up of seven years, with eight reinfections (9.5%). Culture-negative PJI was not associated with a higher reinfection rate (p = 0.343). However, there was a significantly higher rate of recurrence in patients with polymicrobial infections (p = 0.003). The mean Oxford Knee Score (OKS) improved from 18.7 (SD 8.7) preoperatively to 33.8 (SD 9.7) at six months postoperatively (p < 0.001). The Kaplan-Meier implant survival rate for all causes of reoperation, including reinfection and aseptic failure, was 95.2% at one year (95% confidence interval (CI) 87.7 to 98.2), 83.5% at five years (95% CI 73.2 to 90.3), and 78.9% at 12 years (95% CI 66.8 to 87.2). Conclusion. One-stage exchange, using a strict debridement protocol and multidisciplinary input, is an effective treatment option for the infected TKA. This is the largest single-surgeon series of consecutive cases reported to date, with broad inclusion criteria. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(5):305–313

Aims. Uncemented mobile bearing designs in medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) have seen an increase over the last decade. However, there are a lack of large-scale studies comparing survivorship of these specific designs to commonly used cemented mobile and fixed bearing designs. The aim of this study was to evaluate the survivorship of these designs. Methods. A total of 21,610 medial UKAs from 2007 to 2018 were selected from the Dutch Arthroplasty Register. Multivariate Cox regression analyses were used to compare uncemented mobile bearings with cemented mobile and fixed bearings. Adjustments were made for patient and surgical factors, with their interactions being considered. Reasons and type of revision in the first two years after surgery were assessed. Results. In hospitals performing less than 100 cases per year, cemented mobile bearings reported comparable adjusted risks of revision as uncemented mobile bearings. However, in hospitals performing more than 100 cases per year, the adjusted risk of revision was higher for cemented mobile bearings compared to uncemented mobile bearings (hazard ratio 1.78 (95% confidence interval 1.34 to 2.35)). The adjusted risk of revision between cemented fixed bearing and uncemented mobile bearing was comparable, independent of annual hospital volume. In addition, 12.3% of uncemented mobile bearing, 20.3% of cemented mobile bearing, and 41.5% of uncemented fixed bearing revisions were for tibial component loosening. The figures for instability were 23.6%, 14.5% and 11.7%, respectively, and for periprosthetic fractures were 10.0%, 2.8%, and 3.5%. Bearing exchange was the type of revision in 40% of uncemented mobile bearing, 24.3% of cemented mobile bearing, and 5.3% cemented fixed bearing revisions. Conclusion. The findings of this study demonstrated improved survival with use of uncemented compared to cemented mobile bearings in medial UKA, only in those hospitals performing more than 100 cases per year. Cemented fixed bearings reported comparable survival results as uncemented mobile bearings, regardless of the annual hospital volume. The high rates of instability, periprosthetic fractures, and bearing exchange in uncemented mobile bearings emphasize the need for further research. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(7):1261–1269

Previous studies of failure mechanisms leading to revision total knee replacement (TKR) performed between 1986 and 2000 determined that many failed early, with a disproportionate amount accounted for by infection and implant-associated factors including wear, loosening and instability. Since then, efforts have been made to improve implant performance and instruct surgeons in best practice. Recently our centre participated in a multi-centre evaluation of 844 revision TKRs from 2010 to 2011. The purpose was to report a detailed analysis of failure mechanisms over time and to see if failure modes have changed over the past 10 to 15 years. Aseptic loosening was the predominant mechanism of failure (31.2%), followed by instability (18.7%), infection (16.2%), polyethylene wear (10.0%), arthrofibrosis (6.9%) and malalignment (6.6%). The mean time to failure was 5.9 years (ten days to 31 years), 35.3% of all revisions occurred at less than two years, and 60.2% in the first five years. With improvements in implant and polyethylene manufacture, polyethylene wear is no longer a leading cause of failure. Early mechanisms of failure are primarily technical errors. In addition to improving implant longevity, industry and surgeons must work together to decrease these technical errors. All reports on failure of TKR contain patients with unexplained pain who not infrequently have unmet expectations. Surgeons must work to achieve realistic patient expectations pre-operatively, and therefore, improve patient satisfaction post-operatively. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B(11 Suppl A):101–4

Aims. Aseptic loosening of the tibial component is a frequent cause of failure in primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Management options include an isolated tibial revision or full component revision. A full component revision is frequently selected by surgeons unfamiliar with the existing implant or who simply wish to “start again”. This option adds morbidity compared with an isolated tibial revision. While isolated tibial revision has a lower morbidity, it is technically more challenging due to difficulties with exposure and maintaining prosthetic stability. This study was designed to compare these two reconstructive options. Methods. Patients undergoing revision TKA for isolated aseptic tibial loosening between 2012 and 2017 were identified. Those with revision implants or revised for infection, instability, osteolysis, or femoral component loosening were excluded. A total of 164 patients were included; 88 had an isolated tibial revision and 76 had revision of both components despite only having a loose tibial component. The demographics and clinical and radiological outcomes were recorded. Results. The patient demographics were statistically similar in the two cohorts. The median follow-up was 3.5 years (interquartile range (IQR) 1 to 12.5). Supplementary femoral metaphyseal fixation was required in five patients in the full revision cohort. There was a higher incidence of radiological tibial loosening in the full component revision cohort at the final follow-up (8 (10.5%) vs 5 (5.7%); p = 0.269). Three patients in the full component revision cohort developed instability while only one in the isolated tibial cohort did. Three patients in the full revision cohort developed a flexion contracture greater than 5° while none in the isolated tibial cohort did. Conclusion. Isolated tibial revision for aseptic tibial loosening has statistically similar clinical and radiological outcomes at a median follow-up of 3.5 years, when compared with full component revision. Substantial bone loss can occur when removing a well-fixed femoral component necessitating a cone or sleeve. Femoral component revision for isolated tibial loosening can frequently be avoided provided adequate ligamentous stability can be obtained. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(6 Supple A):123–128

Aims. To establish our early clinical results of a new total knee arthroplasty (TKA) tibial component introduced in 2013 and compare it to other designs in use at our hospital during the same period. Methods. This is a retrospective study of 166 (154 patients) consecutive cemented, fixed bearing, posterior-stabilized (PS) TKAs (ATTUNE) at one hospital performed by five surgeons. These were compared with a reference cohort of 511 knees (470 patients) of other designs (seven manufacturers) performed at the same hospital by the same surgeons. There were no significant differences in age, sex, BMI, or follow-up times between the two cohorts. The primary outcome was revision performed or pending. Results. In total, 19 (11.5%) ATTUNE study TKAs have been revised at a mean 30.3 months (SD 15), and loosening of the tibial component was seen in 17 of these (90%). Revision is pending in 12 (7%) knees. There was no difference between the 31 knees revised or with revision pending and the remaining 135 study knees in terms of patient characteristics, type of bone cement (p = 0.988), or individual surgeon (p = 0.550). In the reference cohort, there were significantly fewer knees revised (n = 13, 2.6%) and with revision pending (n = 8, 1.5%) (both p < 0.001), and only two had loosening of the tibial component as the reason for revision. Conclusion. This new TKA design had an unexpectedly high early rate of revision compared with our reference cohort of TKAs. Debonding of the tibial component was the most common reason for failure. Additional longer-term follow-up studies of this specific component and techniques for implantation are warranted. The version of the ATTUNE tibial component implanted in this study has undergone modifications by the manufacturer. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(6 Supple A):137–144

Aims. It has been hypothesized that a unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is more likely to be revised than a total knee arthroplasty (TKA) because conversion surgery to a primary TKA is a less complicated procedure. The purpose of this study was to determine if there is a lower threshold for revising a UKA compared with TKA based on Oxford Knee Scores (OKSs) and range of movement (ROM) at the time of revision. Methods. We retrospectively reviewed 619 aseptic revision cases performed between December 1998 and October 2018. This included 138 UKAs that underwent conversion to TKA and 481 initial TKA revisions. Age, body mass index (BMI), time in situ, OKS, and ROM were available for all patients. Results. There were no differences between the two groups based on demographics or time to revision. The top reasons for aseptic TKA revision were loosening in 212 (44%), instability in 88 (18%), and wear in 69 (14%). UKA revision diagnoses were primarily for loosening in 50 (36%), progression of osteoarthritis (OA) in 50 (36%), and wear in 17 (12%). Out of a maximum 48 points, the mean OKS of the UKAs before revision was 23 (SD 9.3), which was significantly higher than the TKAs at 19.2 (SD 9.8; p < 0.001). UKA patients scored statistically better on nine of the 12 individual OKS questions. The UKA cases also had a larger pre-revision mean ROM (114°, SD 14.3°) than TKAs (98°, SD 25°) ; p < 0.001). Conclusion. At revision, the mean UKA OKSs and ROM were significantly better than those of TKA cases. This study suggests that at our institution there is a difference in preoperative OKS between UKA and TKA at the time of revision, demonstrating a revision bias. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(6 Supple A):91–95

Aims. It has previously been shown that higher-volume hospitals have better outcomes following revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA). We were unable to identify any studies which investigated the effect of surgeon volume on the outcome of rTKA. We sought to investigate whether patients of high-volume (HV) rTKA surgeons have better outcomes following this procedure compared with those of low-volume (LV) surgeons. Methods. This retrospective study involved patients who underwent aseptic unilateral rTKA between January 2016 and March 2019, using the database of a large urban academic medical centre. Surgeons who performed ≥ 19 aseptic rTKAs per year during the study period were considered HV and those who performed < 19 per year were considered LV. Demographic characteristics, surgical factors, and postoperative outcomes were compared between the two groups. Results. A total of 308 rTKAs were identified, 132 performed by HV surgeons and 176 by 22 LV surgeons. The LV group had a significantly greater proportion of non-smokers (59.8% vs 49.2%; p = 0.029). For all types of revision, HV surgeons had significantly shorter mean operating times by 17.75 minutes (p = 0.007). For the 169 full revisions (85 HV, 84 LV), HV surgeons had significantly shorter operating times (131.12 (SD 33.78) vs 171.65 (SD 49.88) minutes; p < 0.001), significantly lower re-revision rates (7.1% vs 19.0%; p = 0.023) and significantly fewer re-revisions (0.07 (SD 0.26) vs 0.29 (SD 0.74); p = 0.017). Conclusion. Patients of HV rTKA surgeons have better outcomes following full rTKA. These findings support the development of revision teams within arthroplasty centres of excellence to offer patients the best possible outcomes following rTKA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(6 Supple A):131–136

Aims. To compare rates of serious adverse events in patients undergoing revision knee arthroplasty with consideration of the indication for revision (urgent versus elective indications), and compare these with primary arthroplasty and re-revision arthroplasty. Methods. Patients undergoing primary knee arthroplasty were identified in the national Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) between 1 April 1997 to 31 March 2017. Subsequent revision and re-revision arthroplasty procedures in the same patients and same knee were identified. The primary outcome was 90-day mortality and a logistic regression model was used to investigate factors associated with 90-day mortality and secondary adverse outcomes, including infection (undergoing surgery), pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, and stroke. Urgent indications for revision arthroplasty were defined as infection or fracture, and all other indications (e.g. loosening, instability, wear) were included in the elective indications cohort. Results. A total of 939,021 primary knee arthroplasty procedures were included (939,021 patients), of which 40,854 underwent subsequent revision arthroplasty, and 9,100 underwent re-revision arthroplasty. Revision surgery for elective indications was associated with a 90-day rate of mortality of 0.44% (135/30,826; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.37 to 0.52) which was comparable to primary knee arthroplasty (0.46%; 4,292/939,021; 95% CI 0.44 to 0.47). Revision arthroplasty for infection was associated with a much higher mortality of 2.04% (184/9037; 95% CI 1.75 to 2.35; odds ratio (OR) 3.54; 95% CI 2.81 to 4.46), as was revision for periprosthetic fracture at 5.25% (52/991; 95% CI 3.94 to 6.82; OR 6.23; 95% CI 4.39 to 8.85). Higher rates of pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, and stroke were also observed in the infection and fracture cohort. Conclusion. Patients undergoing revision arthroplasty for urgent indications (infection or fracture) are at higher risk of mortality and serious adverse events in comparison to primary knee arthroplasty and revision arthroplasty for elective indications. These findings will be important for patient consent and shared decision-making and should inform service design for this patient cohort. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(10):1578–1585

Aims. To estimate the measurement properties for the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) in patients undergoing revision knee arthroplasty (responsiveness, minimal detectable change (MDC-90), minimal important change (MIC), minimal important difference (MID), internal consistency, construct validity, and interpretability). Methods. Secondary data analysis was performed for 10,727 patients undergoing revision knee arthroplasty between 2013 to 2019 using a UK national patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) dataset. Outcome data were collected before revision and at six months postoperatively, using the OKS and EuroQol five-dimension score (EQ-5D). Measurement properties were assessed according to COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guidelines. Results. A total of 9,219 patients had complete outcome data. Mean preoperative OKS was 16.7 points (SD 8.1), mean postoperative OKS 29.1 (SD 11.4), and mean change in OKS + 12.5 (SD 10.7). Median preoperative EQ-5D index was 0.260 (interquartile range (IQR) 0.055 to 0.691), median postoperative EQ-5D index 0.691 (IQR 0.516 to 0.796), and median change in EQ-5D index + 0.240 (IQR 0.000 to 0.567). Internal consistency was good with Cronbach’s α 0.88 (baseline) and 0.94 (post-revision). Construct validity found a high correlation of OKS total score with EQ-5D index (r = 0.76 (baseline), r = 0.83 (post-revision), p < 0.001). The OKS was responsive with standardized effect size (SES) 1.54 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.51 to 1.57), compared to SES 0.83 (0.81 to 0.86) for the EQ-5D index. The MIC for the OKS was 7.5 points (95% CI 5.5 to 8.5) based on the optimal cut-off with specificity 0.72, sensitivity 0.60, and area under the curve 0.66. The MID for the OKS was 5.2 points. The MDC-90 was 3.9 points. The OKS did not demonstrate significant floor or ceiling effects. Conclusion. This study found that the OKS was a useful and valid instrument for assessment of outcome following revision knee arthroplasty. The OKS was responsive to change and demonstrated good measurement properties. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(4):627–634

Aims. Joint registries classify all further arthroplasty procedures to a knee with an existing partial arthroplasty as revision surgery, regardless of the actual procedure performed. Relatively minor procedures, including bearing exchanges, are classified in the same way as major operations requiring augments and stems. A new classification system is proposed to acknowledge and describe the detail of these procedures, which has implications for risk, recovery, and health economics. Methods. Classification categories were proposed by a surgical consensus group, then ranked by patients, according to perceived invasiveness and implications for recovery. In round one, 26 revision cases were classified by the consensus group. Results were tested for inter-rater reliability. In round two, four additional cases were added for clarity. Round three repeated the survey one month later, subject to inter- and intrarater reliability testing. In round four, five additional expert partial knee arthroplasty surgeons were asked to classify the 30 cases according to the proposed revision partial knee classification (RPKC) system. Results. Four classes were proposed: PR1, where no bone-implant interfaces are affected; PR2, where surgery does not include conversion to total knee arthroplasty, for example, a second partial arthroplasty to a native compartment; PR3, when a standard primary total knee prosthesis is used; and PR4 when revision components are necessary. Round one resulted in 92% inter-rater agreement (Kendall’s W 0.97; p < 0.005), rising to 93% in round two (Kendall’s W 0.98; p < 0.001). Round three demonstrated 97% agreement (Kendall’s W 0.98; p < 0.001), with high intra-rater reliability (interclass correlation coefficient (ICC) 0.99; 95% confidence interval 0.98 to 0.99). Round four resulted in 80% agreement (Kendall’s W 0.92; p < 0.001). Conclusion. The RPKC system accounts for all procedures which may be appropriate following partial knee arthroplasty. It has been shown to be reliable, repeatable and pragmatic. The implications for patient care and health economics are discussed. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(8):638–645

Aims. Antibiotic-loaded bone cements (ALBCs) may offer early protection against the formation of bacterial biofilm after joint arthroplasty. Use in hip arthroplasty is widely accepted, but there is a lack of evidence in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The objective of this study was to evaluate the use of ALBC in a large population of TKA patients. Materials and Methods. Data from the National Joint Registry (NJR) of England and Wales were obtained for all primary cemented TKAs between March 2003 and July 2016. Patient, implant, and surgical variables were analyzed. Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess the influence of ALBC on risk of revision. Body mass index (BMI) data were available in a subset of patients. Results. Of 731 214 TKAs, 15 295 (2.1%) were implanted with plain cement and 715 919 (97.9%) with ALBC. There were 13 391 revisions; 2391 were performed for infection. After adjusting for other variables, ALBC had a significantly lower risk of revision for any cause (hazard ratio (HR) 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77 to 0.93; p < 0.001). ALBC was associated with a lower risk of revision for all aseptic causes (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.95; p < 0.001) and revisions for infection (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.01; p = 0.06). The results were similar when BMI was added into the model, and in a subanalysis where surgeons using only ALBC over the entire study period were excluded. Prosthesis survival at ten years for TKAs implanted with ALBC was 96.3% (95% CI 96.3 to 96.4) compared with 95.5% (95% CI 95.0 to 95.9) in those implanted with plain cement. On a population level, where 100 000 TKAs are performed annually, this difference represents 870 fewer revisions at ten years in the ALBC group. Conclusion. After adjusting for a range of variables, ALBC was associated with a significantly lower risk of revision in this registry-based study of an entire nation of primary cemented knee arthroplasties. Using ALBC does not appear to increase midterm implant failure rates. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:1331–1347

The term mid-flexion instability has entered the orthopaedic literature as a concept, but has not been confirmed as a distinct clinical entity. The term is used freely, sometimes as a synonym for flexion instability. However, the terms need to be clearly separated. A cadaver study published in 1990 associated joint line elevation with decreased stability at many angles of flexion, but that model was not typical of clinical scenarios. The literature is considered and it is proposed that the more common entity of an uncorrected flexion contracture after a measured resection arthroplasty technique is more likely to produce clinical findings that suggest instability mid-flexion.

It is proposed that the clinical scenario encountered is generalised instability, with the appearance of stability in full extension from tight posterior structures.

This paper seeks to clarify whether mid-flexion instability exists as an entity distinct from other commonly recognised forms of instability.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B(1 Suppl A):84–8.

Aims. Varus-valgus constrained (VVC) implants are often used during revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) to gain coronal plane stability. However, the increased mechanical torque applied to the bone-cement interface theoretically increases the risk of aseptic loosening. We assessed mid-term survivorship, complications, and clinical outcomes of a fixed-bearing VVC device in revision TKAs. Methods. A total of 416 consecutive revision TKAs (398 patients) were performed at our institution using a single fixed-bearing VVC TKA from 2007 to 2015. Mean age was 64 years (33 to 88) with 50% male (199). Index revision TKA diagnoses were: instability (n = 122, 29%), aseptic loosening (n = 105, 25%), and prosthetic joint infection (PJI) (n = 97, 23%). All devices were cemented on the epiphyseal surfaces. Femoral stems were used in 97% (n = 402) of cases, tibial stems in 95% (n = 394) of cases; all were cemented. In total, 93% (n = 389) of cases required a stemmed femoral and tibial component. Femoral cones were used in 29%, and tibial cones in 40%. Survivorship was assessed via competing risk analysis; clinical outcomes were determined using Knee Society Scores (KSSs) and range of movement (ROM). Mean follow-up was four years (2 to 10). Results. The five-year cumulative incidence of subsequent revision for aseptic loosening and instability were 2% (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.2 to 3, number at risk = 154) and 4% (95% CI 2 to 6, number at risk = 153), respectively. The five-year cumulative incidence of any subsequent revision was 14% (95% CI 10 to 18, number at risk = 150). Reasons for subsequent revision included PJI (n = 23, of whom 12 had previous PJI), instability (n = 13), and aseptic loosening (n = 11). The use of this implant without stems was found to be a significant risk factor for subsequent revision (hazard ratio (HR) 7.58 (95% CI 3.98 to 16.03); p = 0.007). KSS improved from 46 preoperatively to 81 at latest follow-up (p < 0.001). ROM improved from 96° prerevision to 108° at latest follow-up (p = 0.016). Conclusion. The cumulative incidence of subsequent revision for aseptic loosening and instability was very low at five years with this fixed-bearing VVC implant in revision TKAs. Routine use of cemented and stemmed components with targeted use of metaphyseal cones likely contributed to this low rate of aseptic loosening. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(4):458–462

Aims. Revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) accounts for approximately 5% to 10% of all TKAs. Although the complexity of these procedures is well recognized, few investigators have evaluated the cost and value-added with the implementation of a dedicated revision arthroplasty service. The aim of the present study is to compare and contrast surgeon productivity in several differing models of activity. Materials and Methods. All patients that underwent primary or revision TKA from January 2016 to June 2018 were included as the primary source of data. All rTKA patients were categorized by the number of components revised (e.g. liner exchange, two or more components). Three models were used to assess the potential surgical productivity of a dedicated rTKA service : 1) work relative value unit (RVU) versus mean surgical time; 2) primary TKA with a single operating theatre (OT) versus rTKA with a single OT; and 3) primary TKA with two OTs versus rTKA with a single OT. Results. In total, 4570 procedures were performed: 4128 primary TKAs, 51 TKA liner exchanges, and 391 full rTKAs. Surgical time was significantly different between the primary TKA, liner exchange, and rTKA cohorts (100.6, 97.1, and 141.7 minutes, respectively; p < 0.001). Primary TKA yielded a mean of 7.1% more RVU/min per procedure than rTKA. Our one-OT model demonstrated that primary TKA (n = 4) had a 1.9% RVU/day advantage over rTKA (n = 3). If two OTs are used for primary TKA (n = 6), the outcome strongly favours primary TKA by an added 34.6% RVUs/day. Conclusion. Our results suggest that a dedicated rTKA service would lead to lower surgeon remuneration based on the current RVU paradigm. Revision arthroplasty specialists may need additional or alternative incentives to promote the development of a dedicated revision service. Through such an approach, healthcare organizations could enhance the quality of care provided, but surgeon productivity measures would need to be adjusted to reflect the burden of these cases. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:675–681

Peri-prosthetic infection is amongst the most common causes of failure following total knee replacement (TKR). In the presence of established infection, thorough joint debridement and removal of all components is necessary following which new components may be implanted. This can be performed in one or two stages; two-stage revision with placement of an interim antibiotic-loaded spacer is regarded by many to be the standard procedure for eradication of peri-prosthetic joint infection. . We present our experience of a consecutive series of 50 single-stage revision TKRs for established deep infection performed between 1979 and 2010. There were 33 women and 17 men with a mean age at revision of 66.8 years (42 to 84) and a mean follow-up of 10.5 years (2 to 24). The mean time between the primary TKR and the revision procedure was 2.05 years (1 to 8). Only one patient required a further revision for recurrent infection, representing a success rate of 98%. Nine patients required further revision for aseptic loosening, according to microbiological testing of biopsies taken at the subsequent surgery. Three other patients developed a further septic episode but none required another revision. These results suggest that a single-stage revision can produce comparable results to a two-stage revision. Single-stage revision offers a reduction in costs as well as less morbidity and inconvenience for patients. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:759–64

Although it has been suggested that the outcome after revision of a unicondylar knee replacement (UKR) to total knee replacement (TKR) is better when the mechanism of failure is understood, a comparative study on this subject has not been undertaken. A total of 30 patients (30 knees) who underwent revision of their unsatisfactory UKR to TKR were included in the study: 15 patients with unexplained pain comprised group A and 15 patients with a defined cause for pain formed group B. The Oxford knee score (OKS), visual analogue scale for pain (VAS) and patient satisfaction were assessed before revision and at one year after revision, and compared between the groups. The mean OKS improved from 19 (10 to 30) to 25 (11 to 41) in group A and from 23 (11 to 45) to 38 (20 to 48) in group B. The mean VAS improved from 7.7 (5 to 10) to 5.4 (1 to 8) in group A and from 7.4 (2 to 9) to 1.7 (0 to 8) in group B. There was a statistically significant difference between the mean improvements in each group for both OKS (p = 0.022) and VAS (p = 0.002). Subgroup analysis in group A, performed in order to define a patient factor that predicts outcome of revision surgery in patients with unexplained pain, showed no pre-operative differences between both subgroups. These results may be used to inform patients about what to expect from revision surgery, highlighting that revision of UKR to TKR for unexplained pain generally results in a less favourable outcome than revision for a known cause of pain. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:1204–8

The aim of this study was to review the early outcome of the Femoro-Patella Vialla (FPV) joint replacement. A total of 48 consecutive FPVs were implanted between December 2007 and June 2011. Case-note analysis was performed to evaluate the indications, operative histology, operative findings, post-operative complications and reasons for revision. The mean age of the patients was 63.3 years (48.2 to 81.0) and the mean follow-up was 25.0 months (6.1 to 48.9). Revision was performed in seven (14.6%) at a mean of 21.7 months, and there was one re-revision. Persistent pain was observed in three further patients who remain unrevised. The reasons for revision were pain due to progressive tibiofemoral disease in five, inflammatory arthritis in one, and patellar fracture following trauma in one. No failures were related to the implant or the technique. Trochlear dysplasia was associated with a significantly lower rate of revision (5.9% vs 35.7%, p = 0.017) and a lower incidence of revision or persistent pain (11.8% vs 42.9%, p = 0.045). . Focal patellofemoral osteoarthritis secondary to trochlear dysplasia should be considered the best indication for patellofemoral replacement. Standardised radiological imaging, with MRI to exclude overt tibiofemoral disease should be part of the pre-operative assessment, especially for the non-dysplastic knee. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:793–7

Aims. The aim of this study was to establish the results of isolated exchange of the tibial polyethylene insert in revision total knee arthroplasty (RTKA) in patients with well-fixed femoral or tibial components. We report on a series of RTKAs where only the polyethylene was replaced, and the patients were followed for a mean of 13.2 years (10.0 to 19.1). Patients and Methods. Our study group consisted of 64 non-infected, grossly stable TKA patients revised over an eight-year period (1998 to 2006). The mean age of the patients at time of revision was 72.2 years (48 to 88). There were 36 females (56%) and 28 males (44%) in the cohort. All patients had received the same cemented, cruciate-retaining patella resurfaced primary TKA. All subsequently underwent an isolated polyethylene insert exchange. The mean time from the primary TKA to RTKA was 9.1 years (2.2 to 16.1). Results. At final follow-up, 13 patients had died, leaving 51 patients for study. Only seven of these patients had required re-operation. Knee Society scores (KSS) prior to RTKA were a mean of 78.4 (24 to 100). By six weeks post-revision, the mean total KSS was 93.5 (38 to 100) and at final follow-up, they had a mean of 91.6 (36 to 100). Conclusion. In appropriate circumstances, where the femoral and tibial components are satisfactorily aligned and well fixed, and where the soft tissues can be balanced, a polyethylene exchange alone can provide a durable solution for these RTKA patients. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B(7 Supple C):104–107

We present detailed information about early morbidity after aseptic revision knee replacement from a nationwide study. All aseptic revision knee replacements undertaken between 1st October 2009 and 30th September 2011 were analysed using the Danish National Patient Registry with additional information from the Danish Knee Arthroplasty Registry. The 1218 revisions involving 1165 patients were subdivided into total revisions, large partial revisions, partial revisions and revisions of unicondylar replacements (UKR revisions). The mean age was 65.0 years (27 to 94) and the median length of hospital stay was four days (interquartile range: 3 to 5), with a 90 days re-admission rate of 9.9%, re-operation rate of 3.5% and mortality rate of 0.2%. The age ranges of 51 to 55 years (p = 0.018), 76 to 80 years (p < 0.001) and ≥ 81 years (p < 0.001) were related to an increased risk of re-admission. The age ranges of 76 to 80 years (p = 0.018) and the large partial revision subgroup (p = 0.073) were related to an increased risk of re-operation. The ages from 76 to 80 years (p < 0.001), age ≥ 81 years (p < 0.001) and surgical time > 120 min (p <  0.001) were related to increased length of hospital stay, whereas the use of a tourniquet (p = 0.008) and surgery in a low volume centre (p = 0.013) were related to shorter length of stay. . In conclusion, we found a similar incidence of early post-operative morbidity after aseptic knee revisions as has been reported after primary procedures. This suggests that a length of hospital stay ≤ four days and discharge home at that time is safe following aseptic knee revision surgery in Denmark. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:1649–56

Revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a complex procedure which carries both a greater risk for patients and greater cost for the treating hospital than does a primary TKA. As well as the increased cost of peri-operative investigations, blood transfusions, surgical instrumentation, implants and operating time, there is a well-documented increased length of stay which accounts for most of the actual costs associated with surgery. We compared revision surgery for infection with revision for other causes (pain, instability, aseptic loosening and fracture). Complete clinical, demographic and economic data were obtained for 168 consecutive revision TKAs performed at a tertiary referral centre between 2005 and 2012. Revision surgery for infection was associated with a mean length of stay more than double that of aseptic cases (21.5 vs 9.5 days, p < 0.0001). The mean cost of a revision for infection was more than three times that of an aseptic revision (£30 011 (. sd. 4514) vs £9655 (. sd. 599.7), p < 0.0001). . Current NHS tariffs do not fully reimburse the increased costs of providing a revision knee surgery service. Moreover, especially as greater costs are incurred for infected cases. These losses may adversely affect the provision of revision surgery in the NHS. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:197–201

Aims. The aim of this study was to determine if a three-month course of microorganism-directed oral antibiotics reduces the rate of failure due to further infection following two-stage revision for chronic prosthetic joint infection (PJI) of the hip and knee. Methods. A total of 185 patients undergoing a two-stage revision in seven different centres were prospectively enrolled. Of these patients, 93 were randomized to receive microorganism-directed oral antibiotics for three months following reimplantation; 88 were randomized to receive no antibiotics, and four were withdrawn before randomization. Of the 181 randomized patients, 28 were lost to follow-up, six died before two years follow-up, and five with culture negative infections were excluded. The remaining 142 patients were followed for a mean of 3.3 years (2.0 to 7.6) with failure due to a further infection as the primary endpoint. Patients who were treated with antibiotics were also assessed for their adherence to the medication regime and for side effects to antibiotics. Results. Nine of 72 patients (12.5%) who received antibiotics failed due to further infection compared with 20 of 70 patients (28.6%) who did not receive antibiotics (p = 0.012). Five patients (6.9%) in the treatment group experienced adverse effects related to the administered antibiotics severe enough to warrant discontinuation. Conclusion. This multicentre randomized controlled trial showed that a three-month course of microorganism-directed, oral antibiotics significantly reduced the rate of failure due to further infection following a two-stage revision of total hip or knee arthroplasty for chronic PJI. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(6 Supple A):3–9

A key to the success of revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a safe surgical approach using an exposure that minimises complications. In most patients, a medial parapatellar arthrotomy with complete synovectomy is sufficient. If additional exposure is needed, a quadriceps snip performed through the quadriceps tendon often provides the additional exposure required. It is simple to perform and does not alter the post-operative rehabilitative protocol. In rare cases, in which additional exposure is needed, or when removal of a cemented long-stemmed tibial component is required, a tibial tubercle osteotomy (TTO) may be used. Given the risk of post-operative extensor lag, a V-Y quadricepsplasty is rarely indicated and usually considered only if TTO is not possible. . Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B(1 Suppl A):113–15

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

Instability is the reason for revision of a primary total knee replacement (TKR) in 20% of patients. To date, the diagnosis of instability has been based on the patient’s symptoms and a subjective clinical assessment. We assessed whether a measured standardised forced leg extension could be used to quantify instability. A total of 25 patients (11 male/14 female, mean age 70 years; 49 to 85) who were to undergo a revision TKR for instability of a primary implant were assessed with a Nottingham rig pre-operatively and then at six and 26 weeks post-operatively. Output was quantified (in revolutions per minute (rpm)) by accelerating a stationary flywheel. A control group of 183 patients (71 male/112 female, mean age 69 years) who had undergone primary TKR were evaluated for comparison. . Pre-operatively, all 25 patients with instability exhibited a distinctive pattern of reduction in ‘mid-push’ speed. The mean reduction was 55 rpm (. sd. 33.2). Post-operatively, no patient exhibited this pattern and the reduction in ‘mid-push’ speed was 0 rpm. The change between pre- and post-operative assessment was significant (p < 0.001). No patients in the control group exhibited this pattern at any of the intervals assessed. The between-groups difference was also significant (p < 0.001). This suggests that a quantitative diagnostic test to assess the unstable primary TKR could be developed. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:1339–43

We evaluated the rates of survival and cause of revision of seven different brands of cemented primary total knee replacement (TKR) in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register during the years 1994 to 2009. Revision for any cause, including resurfacing of the patella, was the primary endpoint. Specific causes of revision were secondary outcomes. Three posterior cruciate-retaining (PCR) fixed modular-bearing TKRs, two fixed non-modular bearing PCR TKRs and two mobile-bearing posterior cruciate-sacrificing TKRs were investigated in a total of 17 782 primary TKRs. The median follow-up for the implants ranged from 1.8 to 6.9 years. Kaplan-Meier 10-year survival ranged from 89.5% to 95.3%. Cox’s relative risk (RR) was calculated relative to the fixed modular-bearing Profix knee (the most frequently used TKR in Norway), and ranged from 1.1 to 2.6. The risk of revision for aseptic tibial loosening was higher in the mobile-bearing LCS Classic (RR 6.8 (95% confidence interval (CI) 3.8 to 12.1)), the LCS Complete (RR 7.7 (95% CI 4.1 to 14.4)), the fixed modular-bearing Duracon (RR 4.5 (95% CI 1.8 to 11.1)) and the fixed non-modular bearing AGC Universal TKR (RR 2.5 (95% CI 1.3 to 5.1)), compared with the Profix. These implants (except AGC Universal) also had an increased risk of revision for femoral loosening (RR 2.3 (95% CI 1.1 to 4.8), RR 3.7 (95% CI 1.6 to 8.9), and RR 3.4 (95% CI 1.1 to 11.0), respectively). These results suggest that aseptic loosening is related to design in TKR. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:636–42

The outcome of total knee replacement (TKR) using components designed to increase the range of flexion is not fully understood. The short- to mid-term risk of aseptic revision in high flexion TKR was evaluated. The endpoint of the study was aseptic revision and the following variables were investigated: implant design (high flexion vs non-high flexion), the thickness of the tibial insert (≤ 14 mm vs > 14 mm), cruciate ligament (posterior stabilised (PS) vs cruciate retaining), mobility (fixed vs rotating), and the manufacturer (Zimmer, Smith & Nephew and DePuy). Covariates included patient, implant, surgeon and hospital factors. Marginal Cox proportional hazard models were used. In a cohort of 64 000 TKRs, high flexion components were used in 8035 (12.5%). The high flexion knees with tibial liners of thickness > 14 mm had a density of revision of 1.45/100 years of observation, compared with 0.37/100 in non-high flexion TKR with liners ≤ 14 mm thick. Relative to a standard fixed PS TKR, the NexGen (Zimmer, Warsaw, Indiana) Gender Specific Female high flexion fixed PS TKR had an increased risk of revision (hazard ratio (HR) 2.27 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.48 to 3.50)), an effect that was magnified when a thicker tibial insert was used (HR 8.10 (95% CI 4.41 to 14.89)). Surgeons should be cautious when choosing high flexion TKRs, particularly when thicker tibial liners might be required. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:217–23

In this paper we make the case for the use of single-stage revision for infected knee arthroplasty

The aims of this retrospective study were to compare the mid-term outcomes following revision total knee replacement (TKR) in 76 patients (81 knees) < 55 years of age with those of a matched group of primary TKRs based on age, BMI, gender and comorbid conditions. We report the activity levels, functional scores, rates of revision and complications. Compared with patients undergoing primary TKR, those undergoing revision TKR had less improvement in the mean Knee Society function scores (8.14 (–55 to +60) vs 23.3 points (–40 to +80), p < 0.001), a similar improvement in UCLA activity level (p = 0.52), and similar minor complication rates (16% vs 13%, p = 0.83) at a mean follow-up of 4.6 years (2 to 13.4). Further revision surgery was more common among revised TKRs (17% vs 5%, p = 0.02), with deep infection and instability being the most common reasons for failure. As many as one-third of patients aged < 55 years in the revision group had a complication or failure requiring further surgery. Young patients undergoing revision TKR should be counselled that they can expect somewhat less improvement and a higher risk of complications than occur after primary TKR. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014; 96-B:1657–62

We undertook a study to determine the rates of infection and revision of total knee replacement (TKR) in patients with renal failure, renal transplantation and those undergoing renal dialysis in Scotland. The overall early and late infection rates were 1.10% and 2.19% compared with 1.06% and 2.01%, respectively, for non-renal patients. Patients with renal failure had a significantly increased risk of early infection (1.6%, relative risk 1.52, p = 0.002) and late infection (4.47%, relative risk 2.22, p < 0.001). Those on renal dialysis had significantly increased risks of late infection (8.03%, relative risk 3.99, p < 0.001) and early revision (3.70%, relative risk 4.40, p < 0.001). Renal transplant patients had a significantly increased risk of late infection, regardless of whether renal transplantation occurred before TKR (9.09%, relative risk 4.517, p = 0.027) or at any time (8.0%, relative risk 3.975, p = 0.047). There were significantly increased rates of comorbidities associated with infection for all the renal patient groups. Logistic regression analysis showed that renal failure and renal dialysis were independent risk factors for early infection and revision, respectively

Objectives. The purpose of this study was to develop an accurate, reliable and easily applicable method for determining the anatomical location of the joint line during revision knee arthroplasty. Methods. The transepicondylar width (TEW), the perpendicular distance between the medial and lateral epicondyles and the distal articular surfaces (DMAD, DLAD) and the distance between the medial and lateral epicondyles and the posterior articular surfaces (PMAD, DLAD) were measured in 40 knees from 20 formalin-fixed adult cadavers (11 male and nine female; mean age at death 56.9 years, . sd. 9.4; 34 to 69). The ratios of the DMAD, PMAD, DLAD and PLAD to TEW were calculated. Results. The mean TEW, DMAD, PMAD, DLAD and PLAD were 82.76 mm (standard deviation (. sd. ) 7.74), 28.95 mm (. sd. 3.3), 28.57 mm (. sd. 3), 23.97 mm (. sd. 3.27) and 24.42 mm (. sd. 3.14), respectively. The ratios between the TEW and the articular distances (DMAD/TEW, DLAD/TEW, PMAD/TEW and PLAD/TEW) were calculated and their means were 0.35 (. sd. 0.02), 0.34 (. sd. 0.02), 0.28 (. sd. 0.03) and 0.29 (. sd. 0.03), respectively. Conclusion. This method provides a simple, reproducible and reliable technique enabling accurate anatomical joint line restoration during revision total knee arthroplasty. Cite this article: B. Ozkurt, T. Sen, D. Cankaya, S. Kendir, K. Basarır, Y. Tabak. The medial and lateral epicondyle as a reliable landmark for intra-operative joint line determination in revision knee arthroplasty. Bone Joint Res 2016;5:280–286. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.57.BJR-2016-0002.R1

The management of failed autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI) and matrix-assisted autologous chondrocyte implantation (MACI) for the treatment of symptomatic osteochondral defects in the knee represents a major challenge. Patients are young, active and usually unsuitable for prosthetic replacement. This study reports the results in patients who underwent revision cartilage transplantation of their original ACI/MACI graft for clinical or graft-related failure. We assessed 22 patients (12 men and 10 women) with a mean age of 37.4 years (18 to 48) at a mean of 5.4 years (1.3 to 10.9). The mean period between primary and revision grafting was 46.1 months (7 to 89). The mean defect size was 446.6 mm. 2. (150 to 875) and they were located on 11 medial and two lateral femoral condyles, eight patellae and one trochlea. . The mean modified Cincinnati knee score improved from 40.5 (16 to 77) pre-operatively to 64.9 (8 to 94) at their most recent review (p < 0.001). The visual analogue pain score improved from 6.1 (3 to 9) to 4.7 (0 to 10) (p = 0.042). A total of 14 patients (63%) reported an ‘excellent’ (n = 6) or ‘good’ (n = 8) clinical outcome, 5 ‘fair’ and one ‘poor’ outcome. Two patients underwent patellofemoral joint replacement. This study demonstrates that revision cartilage transplantation after primary ACI and MACI can yield acceptable functional results and continue to preserve the joint. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:54–8

We report the results of revision total knee replacement (TKR) in 26 patients with major metaphyseal osteolytic defects using 29 trabecular metal cones in conjunction with a rotating hinged total knee prosthesis. The osteolytic defects were types II and III (A or B) according to the Anderson Orthopaedic Research Institute (AORI) classification. The mean age of the patients was 72 years (62 to 84) and there were 15 men and 11 women. In this series patients had undergone a mean of 2.34 previous total knee arthroplasties. The main objective was to restore anatomy along with stability and function of the knee joint to allow immediate full weight-bearing and active knee movement. Outcomes were measured using Knee Society scores, Oxford knee scores, range of movement of the knee and serial radiographs. Patients were followed for a mean of 36 months (24 to 49). The mean Oxford knee clinical scores improved from 12.83 (10 to 15) to 35.20 (32 to 38) (p < 0.001) and mean American Knee Society scores improved from 33.24 (13 to 36) to 81.12 (78 to 86) (p < 0.001). No radiolucent lines suggestive of loosening were seen around the trabecular metal cones, and by one year all the radiographs showed good osteo-integration. There was no evidence of any collapse or implant migration. Our early results confirm the findings of others that trabecular metal cones offer a useful way of managing severe bone loss in revision TKR. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:1069–74

Antibiotic impregnated articulating spacers are used in two-stage revision total knee arthroplasty to deliver local antibiotic therapy while preserving function. We have observed infection control in greater than 95% of cases with functional outcomes approaching those seen in revision for aseptic loosening. Higher failure has been observed with methicillin resistant organisms.

We carried out 60 revision procedures for failed porous coated anatomic total knee replacements in 54 patients, which were divided into two groups. The 14 knees in group I had a well-fixed femoral component at surgery which was retained, and in the 46 knees in group II both tibial and femoral components were loose and were revised using a variety of implants. Our review comprised clinical and radiological assessment. A total of 13 knees required a second revision. Six (42%) in group I failed very early (mean 2.1 years) when compared with seven (15%) in group II (mean 6.8 years). Failure was due to wear of the polyethylene insert by the abraded, retained femoral component (crude odds ratio 4.07; 95% CI 1.07 to 15.5). We recommend a complete change of primary bearing surfaces at the time of revision of an uncemented total knee replacement in order to prevent early wear of polyethylene

This was a retrospective analysis of the medium- to long-term results of 46 TC3 Sigma revision total knee replacements using long uncemented stems in press-fit mode. Clinical and radiological analysis took place pre-operatively, at two years post-operatively, and at a mean follow-up of 8.5 years (4 to 12). The mean pre-operative International Knee Society (IKS) clinical score was 42 points (0 to 74), improving to 83.7 (52 to 100) by the final follow-up. The mean IKS score for function improved from 34.3 points (0 to 80) to 64.2 (15 to 100) at the final follow-up. At the final follow-up 30 knees (65.2%) had an excellent result, seven (15.2%) a good result, one (2.2%) a medium and eight (17.4%) a poor result. There were two failures, one with anteroposterior instability and one with aseptic loosening. The TC3 revision knee system, when used with press-fit for long intramedullary stems and cemented femoral and tibial components, in both septic and aseptic revisions, results in a satisfactory clinical and radiological outcome, and has a good medium- to long-term survival rate

Revision of a total knee arthroplasty may require an extensile approach to permit a satisfactory exposure without compromising the attachment of the patellar tendon. It has been assumed that a rectus snip is a relatively benign form of release, but the effect of using this approach on function, pain and patient satisfaction is not known. From January 1997 to December 1999, 107 patients who underwent revision of total knee arthroplasty were followed up at a minimum of two years (mean 40.5 months) and assessed by the Oxford Hip Score, the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), the Short-Form (SF)-12 and patient satisfaction. Co-morbidity, surgical exposure, the Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS) knee scores and the range of movement were also used. A standard medial parapatellar approach was used in 57 patients and the rectus snip in 50. The two groups were equivalent for age, sex and co-morbidity scores. The WOMAC function, pain, stiffness and satisfaction scores demonstrated no statistical difference. The use of a rectus snip as an extensile procedure has no effect on outcome

We evaluated the impact of pre-coating the tibial component with polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) on implant survival in a cohort of 16 548 primary NexGen total knee replacements (TKRs) in 14 113 patients. In 13 835 TKRs a pre-coated tray was used while in 2713 TKRs the non-pre-coated version of the same tray was used. All the TKRs were performed between 2001 and 2009 and were cemented. TKRs implanted with a pre-coated tibial component had a lower cumulative survival than those with a non-pre-coated tibial component (p = 0.01). After adjusting for diagnosis, age, gender, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, femoral coupling design, surgeon volume and hospital volume, pre-coating was an independent risk factor for all-cause aseptic revision (hazard ratio 2.75, p = 0.006). Revision for aseptic loosening was uncommon for both pre-coated and non-pre-coated trays (rates of 0.12% and 0%, respectively). Pre-coating with PMMA does not appear to be protective of revision for this tibial tray design at short-term follow-up. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:367–70