Aims. Knee arthroplasty surgery is a highly effective treatment for arthritis and disorders of the knee. There are a wide variety of implant brands and types of knee arthroplasty available to surgeons. As a result of a number of highly publicized failures, arthroplasty surgery is highly regulated in the UK and many other countries through national registries, introduced to monitor implant performance, surgeons, and hospitals. With time, the options available within many brand portfolios have grown, with alternative tibial or femoral components, tibial insert materials, or shapes and patella resurfacings. In this study we have investigated the effect of the expansion of implant brand portfolios and where there may be a lack of transparency around a brand name. We also aimed to establish the potential numbers of compatible implant construct combinations. Methods. Hypothetical implant brand portfolios were proposed, and the number of compatible implant construct combinations was calculated. Results. A simple knee portfolio with cemented cruciate-retaining (CR) and posterior-stabilized (PS) components, with and without a patella, has four combinations. If there are two options available for each component, the numbers double for each option, resulting in 32 combinations. The effect of adding a third option multiplies the number by 1.3. Introducing compatible uncemented options, with the effect of hybrids, multiplies the number by 4. An implant portfolio with two femoral components (both in CR and PS), with two insert options and a patella, all in cemented and uncemented versions leads to 192 possible compatible implant construct combinations. There are implant brands available to surgeons with many more than two options. Conclusion. This study demonstrates that the addition of multiple variants within a knee brand portfolio leads to a large number (many hundreds) of compatible implant construct combinations. Revision rates of implant combinations are not currently reviewed at this level of granularity, leading to the risk of camouflage of true outcomes. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(10):1555–1560

Aims. The outcomes of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) depend on many factors. The impact of implant design on patient-reported outcomes is unknown. Our goal was to evaluate the patient-reported outcomes and satisfaction after primary TKA in patients with osteoarthritis undergoing primary TKA using five different brands of posterior-stabilized implant. Patients and Methods. Using our institutional registry, we identified 4135 patients who underwent TKA using one of the five most common brands of implant. These included Biomet Vanguard (Zimmer Biomet, Warsaw, Indiana) in 211 patients, DePuy/Johnson & Johnson Sigma (DePuy Synthes, Raynham, Massachusetts) in 222, Exactech Optetrak Logic (Exactech, Gainesville, Florida) in 1508, Smith & Nephew Genesis II (Smith & Nephew, London, United Kingdom) in 1415, and Zimmer NexGen (Zimmer Biomet) in 779 patients. Patients were evaluated preoperatively using the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Lower Extremity Activity Scale (LEAS), and 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey questionnaire (SF-12). Demographics including age, body mass index, Charlson Comorbidity Index, American Society of Anethesiologists status, sex, and smoking status were collected. Postoperatively, two-year KOOS, LEAS, SF-12, and satisfaction scores were compared between groups. Results. Outcomes were available for 4069 patients (98%) at two years postoperatively. In multiple regression analysis, which separately compared each implant group with the aggregate of all others, there were no clinically significant differences in the change of KOOS score from baseline to two-year follow-up between any of the groups. More than 80% of patients in each group were satisfied at this time in all domains. In a multivariate regression model, patients in the NexGen group were the most likely to be satisfied (odds ratio (OR) 1.63; p = 0.006) and Optetrak Logic patients were the least likely to be satisfied (OR 0.60; p < 0.001). Conclusion. TKA provides improvement in function and satisfaction regardless of the type of implant. We could not demonstrate superiority of one design above others across these groups of implants, and any price premium for one above the other systems may not be justified. Healthcare administrators may find these similarities in outcomes helpful when negotiating purchasing contracts. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B(7 Supple C):48–54

Aims. Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a common and safe orthopaedic procedure. Zimmer Biomet's NexGen is the second most popular brand of implant used in the UK. The primary cause of revision after the first year is aseptic loosening. We present our experience of using this implant, with significant concerns around its performance with regards early aseptic loosening of the tibial component. Methods. A retrospective, single-surgeon review was carried out of all of the NexGen Legacy Posterior Stabilized (LPS) TKAs performed in this institute. The specific model used for the index procedures was the NexGen Complete Knee System (Legacy Knee-Posterior Stabilized LPS-Flex Articular Surface, LPS-Flex Femoral Component Option, and Stemmed Nonaugmentable Tibial Component Option). Results. Between 2013 and 2016, 352 NexGen TKAs were carried out on 331 patients. A total of 62 TKAs have been revised to date, giving an all-cause revision rate of 17.6% at a minimum of five years. Three of these revisions were due to infection. Overall, 59 of the revisions were performed for aseptic loosening (16.7%) of the tibial component. The tibial component was removed intraoperatively without instrumentation due to significant tibial debonding between the implant-cement interface. Conclusion. While overall, we believe that early aseptic loosening is multi-factorial in nature, the significantly high aseptic revision rate, as seen by an experienced fellowship-trained arthroplasty surgeon, has led us to believe that there is a fundamental issue with this NexGen implant design. Continued implant surveillance and rigorous review across all regions using this particular implant is warranted based on the concerning findings described here. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(6):495–501

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

Aims

The mean age of patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has reduced with time. Younger patients have increased expectations following TKA. Aseptic loosening of the tibial component is the most common cause of failure of TKA in the UK. Interest in cementless TKA has re-emerged due to its encouraging results in the younger patient population. We review a large series of tantalum trabecular metal cementless implants in patients who are at the highest risk of revision surgery.

Aims

This study compared patient-reported outcomes of three total knee arthroplasty (TKA) designs from one manufacturer: one cruciate-retaining (CR) design, and two cruciate-sacrificing designs, anterior-stabilized (AS) and posterior-stabilized (PS).

Aims

This prospective study reports longitudinal, within-patient, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) over a 15-year period following cemented single radius total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Secondary aims included reporting PROMs trajectory, 15-year implant survival, and patient attrition from follow-up.

Aims

The aim of this study was to assess factors associated with the estimated lifetime risk of revision surgery after primary knee arthroplasty (KA).

Aims

Debate remains whether the patella should be resurfaced during total knee replacement (TKR). For non-resurfaced TKRs, we estimated what the revision rate would have been if the patella had been resurfaced, and examined the risk of re-revision following secondary patellar resurfacing.

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.

Aims

Medial pivot (MP) total knee arthroplasties (TKAs) were designed to mimic native knee kinematics with their deep medial congruent fitting of the tibia to the femur almost like a ball-on-socket, and a flat lateral part. GMK Sphere is a novel MP implant. Our primary aim was to study the migration pattern of the tibial tray of this TKA.

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.

Aim

There has been a significant reduction in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) procedures recorded in Australia. This follows several national joint registry studies documenting high UKA revision rates when compared to total knee arthroplasty (TKA). With the recent introduction of robotically assisted UKA procedures, it is hoped that outcomes improve. This study examines the cumulative revision rate of UKA procedures implanted with a newly introduced robotic system and compares the results to one of the best performing non-robotically assisted UKA prostheses, as well as all other non-robotically assisted UKA procedures.

Aims

Loosening of the tibial component after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a common indication for revision. Increasing the strength of the initial tibial implant/cement interface is desirable. There is little information about the surgical techniques that lead to the highest strength. We investigated the effects of eight variables on the strength of the initial tibial baseplate/cement interface.

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly being used to assess functional outcome and patient satisfaction. They provide a framework for comparisons between surgical units, and individual surgeons for benchmarking and financial remuneration. Better performance may bring the reward of more customers as patients and commissioners seek out high performers for their elective procedures. Using National Joint Registry (NJR) data linked to PROMs we identified 22 691 primary total knee replacements (TKRs) undertaken for osteoarthritis in England and Wales between August 2008 and February 2011, and identified the surgical factors that influenced the improvements in the Oxford knee score (OKS) and EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) assessment using multiple regression analysis. After correction for patient factors the only surgical factors that influenced PROMs were implant brand and hospital type (both p < 0.001). However, the effects of surgical factors upon the PROMs were modest compared with patient factors. For both the OKS and the EQ-5D the most important factors influencing the improvement in PROMs were the corresponding pre-operative score and the patient’s general health status. Despite having only a small effect on PROMs, this study has shown that both implant brand and hospital type do influence reported subjective functional scores following TKR. In the current climate of financial austerity, proposed performance-based remuneration and wider patient choice, it would seem unwise to ignore these effects and the influence of a range of additional patient factors.

We are entering a new era with governmental bodies taking an increasingly guiding role, gaining control of registries, demanding direct access with release of open public information for quality comparisons between hospitals. This review is written by physicians and scientists who have worked with the Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Register (SKAR) periodically since it began. It reviews the history of the register and describes the methods used and lessons learned.

Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2014;3:217–22.

Current analysis of unicondylar knee replacements (UKRs) by national registries is based on the pooled results of medial and lateral implants. Consequently, little is known about the differential performance of medial and lateral replacements and the influence of each implant type within these pooled analyses. Using data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales (NJR) we aimed to determine the proportion of UKRs implanted on the lateral side of the knee, and their survival and reason for failure compared with medial UKRs. By combining information on the side of operation with component details held on the NJR, we were able to determine implant laterality (medial versus lateral) for 32 847 of the 35 624 unicondylar replacements (92%) registered before December 2010. Of these, 2052 (6%) were inserted on the lateral side of the knee. The rates of survival at five years were 93.1% (95% confidence interval (CI) 92.7 to 93.5) for medial and 93.0% (95% CI 91.1 to 94.9) for lateral UKRs (p = 0.49). The rates of failure remained equivalent after adjusting for patient age, gender, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, indication for surgery and implant design using Cox’s proportional hazards method (hazard ratio for lateral relative to medial replacement = 0.88 (95% CI 0.69 to 1.13); p = 0.32). Aseptic loosening/lysis and unexplained pain were the main reasons for revision in both groups, although the reasons did vary depending on whether a mobile- or a fixed-bearing design was used. At a maximum of eight years the mid-term survival rates of medial and lateral UKRs are similar.

Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a cost effective and extremely successful operation. As longevity increases, the demand for primary TKA will continue to rise. The success and survivorship of TKAs are dependent on the demographics of the patient, surgical technique and implant-related factors.

Currently the risk of failure of a TKA requiring revision surgery ten years post-operatively is 5%.

The most common indications for revision include aseptic loosening (29.8%), infection (14.8%), and pain (9.5%). Revision surgery poses considerable clinical burdens on patients and financial burdens on healthcare systems.

We present a current concepts review on the epidemiology of failed TKAs using data from worldwide National Joint Registries.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B(1 Suppl A):105–12.

Whether to use total or unicompartmental knee replacement (TKA/UKA) for end-stage knee osteoarthritis remains controversial. Although UKA results in a faster recovery, lower rates of morbidity and mortality and fewer complications, the long-term revision rate is substantially higher than that for TKA. The effect of each intervention on patient-reported outcome remains unclear. The aim of this study was to determine whether six-month patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are better in patients after TKA or UKA, using data from a large national joint registry (NJR).

We carried out a propensity score-matched cohort study which compared six-month PROMs after TKA and UKA in patients enrolled in the NJR for England and Wales, and the English national PROM collection programme. A total of 3519 UKA patients were matched to 10 557 TKAs.

The mean six-month PROMs favoured UKA: the Oxford Knee Score was 37.7 (95% confidence interval (CI) 37.4 to 38.0) for UKA and 36.1 (95% CI 35.9 to 36.3) for TKA; the mean EuroQol EQ-5D index was 0.772 (95% CI 0.764 to 0.780) for UKA and 0.751 (95% CI 0.747 to 0.756) for TKA. UKA patients were more likely to achieve excellent results (odds ratio (OR) 1.59, 95% CI 1.47 to 1.72, p < 0.001) and to be highly satisfied (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.39, p <  0.001), and were less likely to report complications than those who had undergone TKA.

UKA gives better early patient-reported outcomes than TKA; these differences are most marked for the very best outcomes. Complications and readmission are more likely after TKA. Although the data presented reflect the short-term outcome, they suggest that the high revision rate for UKA may not be because of poorer clinical outcomes. These factors should inform decision-making in patients eligible for either procedure.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:793–801.

We identified a group of patients from the Swedish Arthroplasty Register who reported no relief of pain or worse pain one year after a total knee replacement (TKR). A total of two different patient-reported pain scores were used during this process. We then evaluated how the instruments used to measure pain affected the number of patients who reported no relief of pain or worse pain, and the relative effect of potential risk factors.

Between 2008 and 2010, 2883 TKRs were performed for osteoarthritis in two Swedish arthroplasty units. After applying exclusion criteria, 2123 primary TKRs (2123 patients) were included in the study. The Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) and a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for knee pain were used to assess patients pre-operatively and one year post-operatively.

Only 50 of the 220 patients (23%) who reported no pain relief on either the KOOS pain subscale or the VAS for knee pain did so with both of these instruments. Patients who reported no pain relief on either measure tended to have less pain pre-operatively but a higher degree of anxiety. Charnley category C was a predictor for not gaining pain relief as measured on a VAS for knee pain.

The number of patients who are not relieved of pain after a TKR differs considerably depending on the instrument used to measure pain.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:1222–6.