Aims. The primary objective of this study was to compare short-term implant survival between cemented and cementless fixation for the mobile-bearing Oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) across various age groups. The secondary objectives were to compare modes of failure and to evaluate patient-reported outcomes. Methods. A total of 25,762 patients, comprising 8,022 cemented (31.1%) and 17,740 cementless (68.9%) medial UKA cases, were included from the Dutch Arthroplasty Register. Patient stratification was performed based on age: < 50 years, 50 to 59 years, 60 to 69 years, and ≥ 70 years. Survival rates and hazard ratios were calculated.
Limited evidence is available on mid-term outcomes of robotic-arm assisted (RA) partial knee arthroplasty (PKA). Therefore, the purpose of this study was to evaluate mid-term survivorship, modes of failure, and patient-reported outcomes of RA PKA. A retrospective review of patients who underwent RA PKA between June 2007 and August 2016 was performed. Patients received a fixed-bearing medial or lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA), patellofemoral arthroplasty (PFA), or bicompartmental knee arthroplasty (BiKA; PFA plus medial UKA). All patients completed a questionnaire regarding revision surgery, reoperations, and level of satisfaction. Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Scores (KOOS) were assessed using the KOOS for Joint Replacement Junior survey.Aims
Methods
Debate continues regarding the optimum management of periprosthetic distal femoral fractures (PDFFs). This study aims to determine which operative treatment is associated with the lowest perioperative morbidity and mortality when treating low (Su type II and III) PDFFs comparing lateral locking plate fixation (LLP-ORIF) or distal femoral arthroplasty (DFA). This was a retrospective cohort study of 60 consecutive unilateral (PDFFs) of Su types II (40/60) and III (20/60) in patients aged ≥ 60 years: 33 underwent LLP-ORIF (mean age 81.3 years (SD 10.5), BMI 26.7 (SD 5.5); 29/33 female); and 27 underwent DFA (mean age 78.8 years (SD 8.3); BMI 26.7 (SD 6.6); 19/27 female). The primary outcome measure was reoperation. Secondary outcomes included perioperative complications, calculated blood loss, transfusion requirements, functional mobility status, length of acute hospital stay, discharge destination and mortality. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed. Cox multivariate regression analysis was performed to identify risk factors for reoperation after LLP-ORIF.Aims
Methods
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. 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.Aims
Methods
