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.

We examined the association of graft type with the risk of early revision of primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) in a community-based sample. A retrospective analysis of a cohort of 9817 ACLRs recorded in an ACLR Registry was performed. Patients were included if they underwent primary ACLR with bone–patellar tendon–bone autograft, hamstring tendon autograft or allograft tissue. Aseptic failure was the main endpoint of the study. After adjusting for age, gender, ethnicity, and body mass index, allografts had a 3.02 times (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.93 to 4.72) higher risk of aseptic revision than bone–patellar tendon–bone autografts (p < 0.001). Hamstring tendon autografts had a 1.82 times (95% CI 1.10 to 3.00) higher risk of revision compared with bone–patellar tendon–bone autografts (p = 0.019). For each year increase in age, the risk of revision decreased by 7% (95% CI 5 to 9). In gender-specific analyses a 2.26 times (95% CI 1.15 to 4.44) increased risk of hamstring tendon autograft revision in females was observed compared with bone–patellar tendon–bone autograft. We conclude that allograft tissue, hamstring tendon autografts, and younger age may all increase the risk of early revision surgery after ACLR.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:623–8.