Aims. Recent total knee arthroplasty (TKA) designs have featured more anatomical morphologies and shorter tibial keels. However, several reports have raised concerns about the impact of these modifications on implant longevity. The aim of this study was to report the early performance of a modern, cemented TKA design. Methods. All patients who received a primary, cemented TKA between 2012 and 2017 with a minimum two-year follow-up were included. The implant investigated features an asymmetrical tibial baseplate and shortened keel. Patient demographic details, Knee Society Scores (KSS), component alignment, and the presence of radiolucent lines at final follow-up were recorded. Kaplan-Meier analyses were performed to estimate survivorship. Results. A total of 720 of 754 primary TKAs (95.5%) were included with a mean follow-up of 3.9 years (SD 1.3); 562 (78.1%) were cruciate-retaining and 158 (21.9%) were posterior-stabilized. A total of 11 (1.5%) required reoperation for periprosthetic joint infection and seven (1.0%) for aseptic tibial loosening (five cruciate-retaining, two posterior-stabilized). Loosening occurred at a mean of 3.3 years (0.9 to 6.5). There were no cases of loosening in the 33 patients who received a 14 mm × 30 mm tibial stem extension. All-cause survivorship was 96.6% at three years (95% confidence interval (CI) 95.3% to 98.0%) and 96.2% at five years (95% CI 94.8% to 97.7%). Survivorship with revision for aseptic loosening was 99.6% at three years (95% CI 99.1% to 100.0%) and 99.1% at five years (95% CI 98.4% to 99.9%). Tibial components were in significantly more varus in those with aseptic loosening (mean 3.4° (SD 3.7°) vs 1.3° (SD 2.0°); p = 0.015). There were no other differences in demographic, radiological, or surgical characteristics between revised and non-revised TKAs for aseptic loosening (p = 0.293 to 1.00). Mean KSS improved significantly from 57.3 (SD 9.5) preoperatively to 92.6 (SD 8.9) at the final follow-up (p < 0.001). Conclusion. This is the largest series to date of this design of implant. At short-term follow-up, the rate of aseptic tibial loosening is not overly concerning. Further observation is required to determine if there will be an abnormal rate of loosening at mid- to long-term follow-up. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(6 Supple A):51–58

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. The use of cementless total knee arthroplasty (TKA) components has increased during the past decade. The initial design of cementless metal-backed patellar components had shown high failure rates due to many factors. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical results of a second-generation cementless, metal-backed patellar component of a modern design. Methods. This was a retrospective review of 707 primary TKAs in 590 patients from a single institution, using a cementless, metal-backed patellar component with a mean follow-up of 6.9 years (2 to 12). A total of 409 TKAs were performed in 338 females and 298 TKAs in 252 males. The mean age of the patients was 63 years (34 to 87) and their mean BMI was 34.3 kg/m. 2. (18.8 to 64.5). The patients were chosen to undergo a cementless procedure based on age and preoperative radiological and intraoperative bone quality. Outcome was assessed using the Knee Society knee and function scores and range of motion (ROM), complications, and revisions. Results. A total of 24 TKAs (3.4%) in 24 patients failed and required revision surgery, of which five were due to patellar complications (0.71%): one for aseptic patellar loosening (0.14%) and four for polyethylene dissociation (0.57%). A total of 19 revisions (2.7%) were undertaken in 19 patients for indications which did not relate to the patella: four for aseptic tibial loosening (0.57%), one for aseptic femoral loosening (0.14%), nine for periprosthetic infection (1.3%), one for popliteus impingement (0.14%), and four for instability (0.57%). Knee Society knee and function scores, and ROM, improved significantly when comparing pre- and postoperative values. Survival of the metal-backed patellar component for all-cause failure was 97.5% (95% confidence interval 94.9% to 100%) at 12 years. Conclusion. The second-generation cementless TKA design of metal-backed patellar components showed a 97.5% survival at 12 years, with polyethylene dissociation from the metal-backing being the most common cause of patellar failure. In view of the increased use of TKA, especially in younger, more active, or obese patients, these findings are encouraging at mean follow-up of seven years. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(12):1279–1285

Aims. Metaphyseal fixation during revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is important, but potentially difficult when using historical designs of cone. Material and manufacturing innovations have improved the size and shape of the cones which are available, and simplified the required bone preparation. In a large series, we assessed the implant survivorship, radiological results, and clinical outcomes of new porous 3D-printed titanium metaphyseal cones featuring a reamer-based system. Methods. We reviewed 142 revision TKAs in 139 patients using 202 cones (134 tibial, 68 femoral) which were undertaken between 2015 and 2016. A total of 60 involved tibial and femoral cones. Most cones (149 of 202; 74%) were used for Type 2B or 3 bone loss. The mean age of the patients was 66 years (44 to 88), and 76 (55 %) were female. The mean body mass index (BMI) was 34 kg/m. 2. (18 to 60). The patients had a mean of 2.4 (1 to 8) previous operations on the knee, and 68 (48%) had a history of prosthetic infection. The mean follow-up was 2.4 years (2 to 3.6). Results. Survivorship free of cone revision for aseptic loosening was 100% and survivorship free of any cone revision was 98%. Survivorships free of any revision and any reoperation were 90% and 83%, respectively. Five cones were revised: three for infection, one for periprosthetic fracture, and one for aseptic tibial loosening. Radiologically, three unrevised femoral cones appeared loose in the presence of hinged implants, while the remaining cones appeared stable. All cases of cone loosening occurred in patients with Type 2B or 3 defects. The mean Knee Society score (KSS) improved significantly from 50 (0 to 94) preoperatively to 87 (72 to 94) (p < 0.001). Three intraoperative fractures with cone impaction (two femoral, one tibial) healed uneventfully. Conclusion. Novel 3D-printed titanium cones, with a reamer-based system, yielded excellent early survivorship and few complications in patients with severe bone loss undergoing difficult revision TKA. The diversity of cone options, relative ease of preparation, and outcomes rivalling those of previous designs of cone support their continued use. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(6 Supple A):107–115

Aims. There is little literature about total knee arthroplasty (TKA) after distal femoral osteotomy (DFO). Consequently, the purpose of this study was to analyze the outcomes of TKA after DFO, with particular emphasis on: survivorship free from aseptic loosening, revision, or any re-operation; complications; radiological results; and clinical outcome. Patients and Methods. We retrospectively reviewed 29 patients (17 women, 12 men) from our total joint registry who had undergone 31 cemented TKAs after a DFO between 2000 and 2012. Their mean age at TKA was 51 years (22 to 76) and their mean body mass index 32 kg/m. 2. (20 to 45). The mean time between DFO and TKA was ten years (2 to 20). The mean follow-up from TKA was ten years (2 to 16). The prostheses were posterior-stabilized in 77%, varus-valgus constraint (VVC) in 13%, and cruciate-retaining in 10%. While no patient had metaphyseal fixation (e.g. cones or sleeves), 16% needed a femoral stem. Results. The ten-year survivorship was 95% with aseptic loosening as the endpoint, 88% with revision for any reason as the endpoint, and 81% with re-operation for any reason as the endpoint. Three TKAs were revised for instability (n = 2) and aseptic tibial loosening (n = 1). No femoral component was revised for aseptic loosening. Patients under the age of 50 years were at greater risk of revision for any reason (hazard ratio 7; p = 0.03). There were two additional re-operations (6%) and four complications (13%), including three manipulations under anaesthetic (MUA; 10%). The Knee Society scores improved from a mean of 50 preoperatively (32 to 68) to a mean of 93 postoperatively (76 to 100; p < 0.001). Conclusion. A cemented posterior-stabilized TKA has an 88% ten-year survivorship with revision for any reason as the endpoint. No femoral component was revised for aseptic loosening. Patients under the age of 50 years have a greater risk of revision. The clinical outcome was significantly improved but balancing the knee was challenging in 13% of TKAs requiring VVC. Overall, 10% of TKAs needed an MUA, and 6% of TKAs were revised for instability. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:660–666

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

Recent publications have drawn attention to the fact that some brands of joint replacement may contain variants which perform significantly worse (or better) than their ‘siblings’. As a result, the National Joint Registry has performed much more detailed analysis on the larger families of knee arthroplasties in order to identify exactly where these differences may be present and may hitherto have remained hidden. The analysis of the Nexgen knee arthroplasty brand identified that some posterior-stabilized combinations have particularly high revision rates for aseptic loosening of the tibia, and consequently a medical device recall has been issued for the Nexgen ‘option’ tibial component which was implicated. More elaborate signal detection is required in order to identify such variation in results in a routine fashion if patients are to be protected from such variation in outcomes between closely related implant types.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(3):221–226.

Aims

Robotic arm-assisted surgery offers accurate and reproducible guidance in component positioning and assessment of soft-tissue tensioning during knee arthroplasty, but the feasibility and early outcomes when using this technology for revision surgery remain unknown. The objective of this study was to compare the outcomes of robotic arm-assisted revision of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) to total knee arthroplasty (TKA) versus primary robotic arm-assisted TKA at short-term follow-up.

Aims. Tibial cones are often utilized in revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) with metaphyseal defects. Because there are few studies evaluating mid-term outcomes with a sufficient cohort, the purpose of this study was to evaluate tibial cone survival and complications in revision TKAs with tibial cones at minimum follow-up of five years. Methods. A retrospective review was completed from September 2006 to March 2015, evaluating 67 revision TKAs (64 patients) that received one specific porous tibial cone during revision TKA. The final cohort was composed of 62 knees (59 patients) with five years of clinical follow-up or reoperation. The mean clinical follow-up of the TKAs with minimum five-year clinical follow-up was 7.6 years (5.0 to 13.3). Survivorship analysis was performed with the endpoints of tibial cone revision for aseptic loosening, tibial cone revision for any reason, and reoperation. We also evaluated periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), risk factors for failure, and performed a radiological review. Results. The rate of cone revision for aseptic loosening was 6.5%, with an eight-year survival of 95%. Significant bone loss (Anderson Orthopaedic Research Institute grade 3) was associated with cone revision for aseptic loosening (p = 0.002). The rate of cone revision for any reason was 17.7%, with an eight-year survival of 84%. Sixteen percent of knees developed PJI following revision. A pre-revision diagnosis of reimplantation as part of a two-stage exchange protocol for infection was associated with both PJI (p < 0.001) and tibial cone revision (p = 0.001). Conclusion. Mid-term results of tibial cones showed a survivorship free of cone revision for aseptic loosening of 95%. Patients with significant bone loss were more likely to have re-revision for tibial cone failure. Infection was common, and patients receiving cones at reimplantation were more likely to develop PJI and undergo cone revision. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(6 Supple A):158–164

Aims

Metaphyseal cones with cemented stems are frequently used in revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA). However, if the diaphysis has been previously violated, the resultant sclerotic canal can impair cemented stem fixation, which is vital for bone ingrowth into the cone, and long-term fixation. We report the outcomes of our solution to this problem, in which impaction grafting and a cemented stem in the diaphysis is combined with an uncemented metaphyseal cone, for revision TKA in patients with severely compromised bone.

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).

Aims

Tibiofemoral alignment is important to determine the rate of progression of osteoarthritis and implant survival after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Normally, surgeons aim for neutral tibiofemoral alignment following TKA, but this has been questioned in recent years. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether varus or valgus alignment indeed leads to increased medial or lateral tibiofemoral forces during static and dynamic weight-bearing activities.

The management of bone loss in revision replacement of the knee remains a challenge despite an array of options available to the surgeon. Bone loss may occur as a result of the original disease, the design of the prosthesis, the mechanism of failure or technical error at initial surgery. The aim of revision surgery is to relieve pain and improve function while addressing the mechanism of failure in order to reconstruct a stable platform with transfer of load to the host bone. Methods of reconstruction include the use of cement, modular metal augmentation of prostheses, custom-made, tumour-type or hinged implants and bone grafting.

The published results of the surgical techniques are summarised and a guide for the management of bone defects in revision surgery of the knee is presented.