Aims

The aim of this consensus was to develop a definition of post-operative fibrosis of the knee.

We performed a randomised controlled trial comparing computer-assisted surgery (CAS) with conventional surgery (CONV) in total knee replacement (TKR). Between 2009 and 2011 a total of 192 patients with a mean age of 68 years (55 to 85) with osteoarthritis or arthritic disease of the knee were recruited from four Norwegian hospitals. At three months follow-up, functional results were marginally better for the CAS group. Mean differences (MD) in favour of CAS were found for the Knee Society function score (MD: 5.9, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.3 to 11.4, p = 0.039), the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) subscales for ‘pain’ (MD: 7.7, 95% CI 1.7 to 13.6, p = 0.012), ‘sports’ (MD: 13.5, 95% CI 5.6 to 21.4, p = 0.001) and ‘quality of life’ (MD: 7.2, 95% CI 0.1 to 14.3, p = 0.046). At one-year follow-up, differences favouring CAS were found for KOOS ‘sports’ (MD: 11.0, 95% CI 3.0 to 19.0, p = 0.007) and KOOS ‘symptoms’ (MD: 6.7, 95% CI 0.5 to 13.0, p = 0.035). The use of CAS resulted in fewer outliers in frontal alignment (> 3° malalignment), both for the entire TKR (37.9% vs 17.9%, p = 0.042) and for the tibial component separately (28.4% vs 6.3%, p = 0.002). Tibial slope was better achieved with CAS (58.9% vs 26.3%, p < 0.001). Operation time was 20 minutes longer with CAS. In conclusion, functional results were, statistically, marginally in favour of CAS. Also, CAS was more predictable than CONV for mechanical alignment and positioning of the prosthesis. However, the long-term outcomes must be further investigated.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014; 96-B:609–18.

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.