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.

Aims

Conflicting clinical results are reported for the ATTUNE Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA). This randomized controlled trial (RCT) evaluated five-year follow-up results comparing cemented ATTUNE and PFC-Sigma cruciate retaining TKAs, analyzing component migration as measured by radiostereometric analysis (RSA), clinical outcomes, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and radiological outcomes.

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.

Aims

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) occurs in approximately 1% to 2% of total knee arthroplasties (TKA) presenting multiple challenges, such as difficulty in diagnosis, technical complexity, and financial costs. Two-stage exchange is the gold standard for treating PJI but emerging evidence suggests 'two-in-one' single-stage revision as an alternative, delivering comparable outcomes, reduced morbidity, and cost-effectiveness. This study investigates five-year results of modified single-stage revision for treatment of PJI following TKA with bone loss.

Introduction

The primary aim of this study was to describe a baseline comparison of early knee-specific functional outcomes following revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) using metaphyseal sleeves with a matched cohort of patients undergoing primary TKA. The secondary aim was to compare incidence of complications and length of stay (LOS) between the two groups.

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.

Following arthroplasty of the knee, the patient’s perception of improvement in symptoms is fundamental to the assessment of outcome. Better clinical outcome may offset the inferior survival observed for some types of implant. By examining linked National Joint Registry (NJR) and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) data, we aimed to compare PROMs collected at a minimum of six months post-operatively for total (TKR: n = 23 393) and unicondylar knee replacements (UKR: n = 505). Improvements in knee-specific (Oxford knee score, OKS) and generic (EuroQol, EQ-5D) scores were compared and adjusted for case-mix differences using multiple regression. Whereas the improvements in the OKS and EQ-5D were significantly greater for TKR than for UKR, once adjustments were made for case-mix differences and pre-operative score, the improvements in the two scores were not significantly different. The adjusted mean differences in the improvement of OKS and EQ-5D were 0.0 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.9 to 0.9; p = 0.96) and 0.009 (95% CI -0.034 to 0.015; p = 0.37), respectively.

We found no difference in the improvement of either knee-specific or general health outcomes between TKR and UKR in a large cohort of registry patients. With concerns about significantly higher revision rates for UKR observed in worldwide registries, we question the widespread use of an arthroplasty that does not confer a significant benefit in clinical outcome.

A postal questionnaire was sent to 10 000 patients more than one year after their total knee replacement (TKR). They were assessed using the Oxford knee score and were asked whether they were satisfied, unsure or unsatisfied with their TKR. The response rate was 87.4% (8231 of 9417 eligible questionnaires) and a total of 81.8% (6625 of 8095) of patients were satisfied. Multivariable regression modelling showed that patients with higher scores relating to the pain and function elements of the Oxford knee score had a lower level of satisfaction (p < 0.001), and that ongoing pain was a stronger predictor of this. Female gender and a primary diagnosis of osteoarthritis were found to be predictors of lower levels of patient satisfaction. Differences in the rate of satisfaction were also observed in relation to age, the American Society of Anesthesiologists grade and the type of prosthesis.

This study has provided data on the Oxford knee score and the expected levels of satisfaction at one year after TKR. The results should act as a benchmark of practice in the United Kingdom and provide a baseline for peer comparison between institutions.