Aims. We compared the risks of re-revision and mortality between two-stage revision surgery and single-stage revision surgery among patients with infected primary knee arthroplasty. Methods. Patients with a periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) of their primary knee arthroplasty, initially revised with a single-stage or a two-stage procedure in England and Wales between 2003 and 2014, were identified from the National Joint Registry. We used Poisson regression with restricted cubic splines to compute hazard ratios (HR) at different postoperative periods. The total number of revisions and re-revisions undergone by patients was compared between the two strategies. Results. A total of 489 primary knee arthroplasties were revised with single-stage procedure (1,390 person-years) and 2,377 with two-stage procedure (8,349 person-years). The adjusted incidence rates of all-cause re-revision and for infection were comparable between these strategies (HR overall five years, 1.15 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87 to 1.52), p = 0.308; HR overall five years, 0.99 (95% CI 0.70 to 1.39), p = 0.949, respectively). Patients initially managed with single-stage revision received fewer revision procedures overall than after two-stage revision (1.2 vs 2.2, p < 0.001). Mortality was lower for single-stage revision between six and 18 months postoperative (HR at six months, 0.51 (95% CI 0.25 to 1.00), p = 0.049 HR at 18 months, 0.33 (95% CI 0.12 to 0.99), p = 0.048) and comparable at other timepoints. Conclusion. The risk of re-revision was similar between single- and two-stage revision for infected primary knee arthroplasty. Single-stage group required fewer revisions overall, with lower or comparable mortality at specific postoperative periods. The single-stage revision is a safe and effective strategy to treat infected knee arthroplasties. There is potential for increased use to reduce the burden of knee PJI for patients, and for the healthcare system. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2022;11(10):690–699

Aims. The aim of this study was to report the meaningful values of the EuroQol five-dimension three-level questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L) and EuroQol visual analogue scale (EQ-VAS) in patients undergoing primary knee arthroplasty (KA). Methods. This is a retrospective study of patients undergoing primary KA for osteoarthritis in a university teaching hospital (Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh) (1 January 2013 to 31 December 2019). Pre- and postoperative (one-year) data were prospectively collected for 3,181 patients (median age 69.9 years (interquartile range (IQR) 64.2 to 76.1); females, n = 1,745 (54.9%); median BMI 30.1 kg/m. 2. (IQR 26.6 to 34.2)). The reliability of the EQ-5D-3L was measured using Cronbach’s alpha. Responsiveness was determined by calculating the anchor-based minimal clinically important difference (MCID), the minimal important change (MIC) (cohort and individual), the patient-acceptable symptom state (PASS) predictive of satisfaction, and the minimal detectable change at 90% confidence intervals (MDC-90). Results. The EQ-5D-3L demonstrated good internal consistency with an overall Cronbach alpha of 0.75 (preoperative) and 0.88 (postoperative), respectively. The MCID for the Index score was 0.085 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.042 to 0.127) and EQ-VAS was 6.41 (95% CI 3.497 to 9.323). The MIC. COHORT. was 0.289 for the EQ-5D and 5.27 for the EQ-VAS. However, the MIC. INDIVIDUAL. for both the EQ-5D-3L Index (0.105) and EQ-VAS (-1) demonstrated poor-to-acceptable reliability. The MDC-90 was 0.023 for the EQ-5D-3L Index and 1.0 for the EQ-VAS. The PASS for the postoperative EQ-5D-3L Index and EQ-VAS scores predictive of patient satisfaction were 0.708 and 77.0, respectively. Conclusion. The meaningful values of the EQ-5D-3L Index and EQ-VAS scores can be used to measure clinically relevant changes in health-related quality of life in patients undergoing primary KA. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2022;11(9):619–628

Aims. This study investigates whether primary knee arthroplasty (KA) restores health-related quality of life (HRQoL) to levels expected in the general population. Methods. This retrospective case-control study compared HRQoL data from two sources: patients undergoing primary KA in a university-teaching hospital (2013 to 2019), and the Health Survey for England (HSE; 2010 to 2012). Patient-level data from the HSE were used to represent the general population. Propensity score matching was used to balance covariates and facilitate group comparisons. A propensity score was estimated using logistic regression based upon the covariates sex, age, and BMI. Two matched cohorts with 3,029 patients each were obtained for the adjusted analyses (median age 70.3 (interquartile range (IQR) 64 to 77); number of female patients 3,233 (53.4%); median BMI 29.7 kg/m. 2. (IQR 26.5 to 33.7)). HRQoL was measured using the three-level version of the EuroQol five-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L), and summarized using the Index and EuroQol visual analogue scale (EQ-VAS) scores. Results. Patients awaiting KA had significantly lower EQ-5D-3L Index scores than the general population (median 0.620 (IQR 0.16 to 0.69) vs median 0.796 (IQR 0.69 to 1.00); p < 0.001). By one year postoperatively, the median EQ-5D-3L Index score improved significantly in the KA cohort (mean change 0.32 (SD 0.33); p < 0.001), and demonstrated no clinically relevant differences when compared to the general population (median 0.796 (IQR 0.69 to 1.00) vs median 0.796 (IQR 0.69 to 1.00)). Compared to the general population cohort, the postoperative EQ-VAS was significantly higher in the KA cohort (p < 0.001). Subgroup comparisons demonstrated that older age groups had statistically better EQ-VAS scores than matched peers in the general population. Conclusion. Patients awaiting KA for osteoarthritis had significantly poorer HRQoL than the general population. However, within one year of surgery, primary KA restored HRQoL to levels expected for the patient’s age-, BMI-, and sex-matched peers. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(4):365–372

Aims. The aim of this study was to assess factors associated with the estimated lifetime risk of revision surgery after primary knee arthroplasty (KA). Methods. All patients from the Scottish Arthroplasty Project dataset undergoing primary KA during the period 1 January 1998 to 31 December 2019 were included. The cumulative incidence function for revision and death was calculated up to 20 years. Adjusted analyses used cause-specific Cox regression modelling to determine the influence of patient factors. The lifetime risk was calculated as a percentage for patients aged between 45 and 99 years using multiple-decrement life table methodology. Results. The estimated lifetime risk of revision ranged between 32.7% (95% confidence interval (CI) 22.6 to 47.3) for patients aged 45 to 49 years and 0.6% (95% CI 0.1 to 4.5) for patients aged over 90 years. At 20 years, the overall cumulative incidence of revision (6.8% (95% CI 6.6 to 7.0)) was significantly less than that of death (66.3% (95% CI 65.4 to 67.1)). Adjusted analyses demonstrated converse effect of increasing age on risk of revision (hazard ratio (HR) 0.5 (95% CI 0.5 to 0.6)) and death (HR 3.6 (95% CI 3.4 to 3.7)). Male sex was associated with increased risks of revision (HR 1.1 (95% CI 1.1 to 1.2); p < 0.001) and death (HR 1.4 (95% CI 1.3 to 1.4); p < 0.001). Compared to patients undergoing primary KA for osteoarthritis, patients with inflammatory arthropathy had a higher risk of death (HR 1.7 (95% CI 1.7 to 1.8); p < 0.001), but were less likely to be revised (HR 0.9 (95% CI 0.7 to 1.0); p < 0.001). Patients with a greater number of comorbidities (HR 1.4 (95% CI 1.3 to 1.4)) and greater levels of socioeconomic deprivation (HR 1.4 (95% CI 1.4 to 1.5)) were at increased risk of death, but neither increased the risk of revision. Conclusion. The estimated lifetime risk of revision KA varied depending on patient sex, age, and underlying diagnosis. Patients aged between 45 and 49 years had a one in three risk of undergoing revision surgery within their lifetime, which decreased with age to one in 159 in those aged 90 years or more. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(12):1313–1322

The June 2024 Knee Roundup. 360. looks at: The estimated lifetime risk of revision after primary knee arthroplasty influenced by age, sex, and indication; Should high-risk patients seek out care from high-volume surgeons?; Stability and fracture rates in medial unicondylar knee arthroplasties; Rethinking antibiotic prophylaxis for dental procedures post-arthroplasty; Evaluating DAIR: a viable alternative for acute periprosthetic joint infection; The characteristics and predictors of mortality in periprosthetic fractures around the knee; Patient health-related quality of life deteriorates significantly while waiting six to 12 months for total hip or knee arthroplasty; The importance of looking for diversity in knee implants

We discuss the role of primary knee arthroplasty in supracondylar and intercondylar fractures of the femur in elderly patients with reference to 13 cases. This method of treatment is shown to be effective and to have good results. It is recommended for all type C and some type A supracondylar fractures in old people

Aims

The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and bias evaluation of the current literature to create an overview of risk factors for re-revision following revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA).

Aims

This study aimed to describe the use of revision knee arthroplasty in Australia and examine changes in lifetime risk over a decade.

We report a ten-year rate of survival of 96% for the cemented Freeman-Samuelson knee arthroplasty in patients from the Swedish Knee Registry and the Royal London Hospital with revision for aseptic loosening as the criterion for failure.

Out of a total of 623 patients who, over a ten-year period, underwent primary total knee replacement (TKR) without patellar resurfacing, 20 underwent secondary resurfacing for chronic anterior knee pain.

They were evaluated pre- and postoperatively using the clinical and radiological American Knee Society score. The mean follow-up was 36.1 months (12 to 104). The mean knee score improved from 46.7 to 62.2 points and the mean functional score from 44.7 to 52.2 points. Only 44.4% of the patients, however, reported some improvement; the remainder reported no change or deterioration. The radiographic alignment of the TKR did not influence the outcome of secondary resurfacing of the patella. Complications were noted in six of the 20 patients including fracture and instability of the patella and loss of movement.

Anterior knee pain after TKR remains difficult to manage. Secondary resurfacing of the patella is not advocated in all patients since it may increase patient dissatisfaction and hasten revision.

Aims. To compare rates of serious adverse events in patients undergoing revision knee arthroplasty with consideration of the indication for revision (urgent versus elective indications), and compare these with primary arthroplasty and re-revision arthroplasty. Methods. Patients undergoing primary knee arthroplasty were identified in the national Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) between 1 April 1997 to 31 March 2017. Subsequent revision and re-revision arthroplasty procedures in the same patients and same knee were identified. The primary outcome was 90-day mortality and a logistic regression model was used to investigate factors associated with 90-day mortality and secondary adverse outcomes, including infection (undergoing surgery), pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, and stroke. Urgent indications for revision arthroplasty were defined as infection or fracture, and all other indications (e.g. loosening, instability, wear) were included in the elective indications cohort. Results. A total of 939,021 primary knee arthroplasty procedures were included (939,021 patients), of which 40,854 underwent subsequent revision arthroplasty, and 9,100 underwent re-revision arthroplasty. Revision surgery for elective indications was associated with a 90-day rate of mortality of 0.44% (135/30,826; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.37 to 0.52) which was comparable to primary knee arthroplasty (0.46%; 4,292/939,021; 95% CI 0.44 to 0.47). Revision arthroplasty for infection was associated with a much higher mortality of 2.04% (184/9037; 95% CI 1.75 to 2.35; odds ratio (OR) 3.54; 95% CI 2.81 to 4.46), as was revision for periprosthetic fracture at 5.25% (52/991; 95% CI 3.94 to 6.82; OR 6.23; 95% CI 4.39 to 8.85). Higher rates of pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, and stroke were also observed in the infection and fracture cohort. Conclusion. Patients undergoing revision arthroplasty for urgent indications (infection or fracture) are at higher risk of mortality and serious adverse events in comparison to primary knee arthroplasty and revision arthroplasty for elective indications. These findings will be important for patient consent and shared decision-making and should inform service design for this patient cohort. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(10):1578–1585

Aims. The metabolic equivalent of task (MET) score examines patient performance in relation to energy expenditure before and after knee arthroplasty. This study assesses its use in a knee arthroplasty population in comparison with the widely used Oxford Knee Score (OKS) and EuroQol five-dimension index (EQ-5D), which are reported to be limited by ceiling effects. Methods. A total of 116 patients with OKS, EQ-5D, and MET scores before, and at least six months following, unilateral primary knee arthroplasty were identified from a database. Procedures were performed by a single surgeon between 2014 and 2019 consecutively. Scores were analyzed for normality, skewness, kurtosis, and the presence of ceiling/floor effects. Concurrent validity between the MET score, OKS, and EQ-5D was assessed using Spearman’s rank. Results. Postoperatively the OKS and EQ-5D demonstrated negative skews in distribution, with high kurtosis at six months and one year. The OKS demonstrated a ceiling effect at one year (15.7%) postoperatively. The EQ-5D demonstrated a ceiling effect at six months (30.2%) and one year (39.8%) postoperatively. The MET score did not demonstrate a skewed distribution or ceiling effect either at six months or one year postoperatively. Weak-moderate correlations were noted between the MET score and conventional scores at six months and one year postoperatively. Conclusion. In contrast to the OKS and EQ-5D, the MET score was normally distributed postoperatively with no ceiling effect. It is worth consideration as an arthroplasty outcome measure, particularly for patients with high expectations. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(3):129–137

Aims. The aim of this study was to describe the pattern of revision indications for unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and any change to this pattern for UKA patients over the last 20 years, and to investigate potential associations to changes in surgical practice over time. Methods. All primary knee arthroplasty surgeries performed due to primary osteoarthritis and their revisions reported to the Danish Knee Arthroplasty Register from 1997 to 2017 were included. Complex surgeries were excluded. The data was linked to the National Patient Register and the Civil Registration System for comorbidity, mortality, and emigration status. TKAs were propensity score matched 4:1 to UKAs. Revision risks were compared using competing risk Cox proportional hazard regression with a shared γ frailty component. Results. Aseptic loosening (loosening) was the most common revision indication for both UKA (26.7%) and TKA (29.5%). Pain and disease progression accounted for 54.6% of the remaining UKA revisions. Infections and instability accounted for 56.1% of the remaining TKA revision. The incidence of revision due to loosening or pain decreased over the last decade, being the second and third least common indications in 2017. There was a decrease associated with fixation method for pain (hazard ratio (HR) 0.40; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 0.94) and loosening (HR 0.29; 95% CI 0.10 to 0.81) for cementless compared to cemented, and units UKA usage for pain (HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.91), and loosening (HR 0.51; 95% CI 0.37 to 0.70) for high usage. Conclusion. The overall revision patterns for UKA and TKA for the last 20 years are comparable to previous published patterns. We found large changes to UKA revision patterns in the last decade, and with the current surgical practice, revision due to pain or loosening are significantly less likely. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(12):923–931

Aims. Our unit was identified as a negative outlier in the national patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) programme, which has significant funding implications. As a centre that carries out a high volume of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA), our objectives were: 1) to determine whether the PROMs programme included primary UKA when calculating the gain in Oxford Knee Score (OKS); and 2) to determine the impact of excluding primary UKA on calculated OKS gains for primary knee arthroplasty. Materials and Methods. National PROMs data from England (2012 to 2016) were analyzed. Inclusion of UKA cases in the national PROMs programme was determined using clinical codes. Local OKS gain was calculated for UKA and TKA and compared with the published PROMs results for 2012/13. Results. Use of the recommended codes for primary UKA excluded 99.6% of UKAs locally and 97% nationally from PROMs programme analysis. Inclusion of primary UKAs in PROMs analysis improved our OKS gain from 15.1 (below average) to 16.3 (above average) for 2012/13 for primary knee arthroplasty. Conclusion. Exclusion of UKA patients from the PROMs programme is a nationwide issue that potentially introduces bias when comparing OKS gain between centres. Where commissioning decisions are based on routinely collected data, it is imperative that the underlying methodology is appropriate to generate valid results

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. Methods. Patient demographic details, BMI, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, indication for revision, surgical approach, surgeon grade, implant type (fixed and rotating), time of revision from primary implantation, and re-revision if undertaken were obtained from the National Joint Registry data for England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the Isle of Man over an 18-year period (2003 to 2021). Results. There were 3,855 patient episodes analyzed with a median age of 73 years (interquartile range (IQR) 66 to 80), and the majority were female (n = 2,480, 64.3%). The median time to revision from primary knee arthroplasty was 1,219 days (IQR 579 to 2,422). Younger age (p < 0.001), decreasing ASA grade (p < 0.001), and indications for revision of sepsis (p < 0.001), unexplained pain (p < 0.001), non-polyethylene wear (p < 0.001), and malalignment (p < 0.001) were all associated with an earlier time to revision from primary implantation. The median follow-up was 4.56 years (range 0.00 to 17.52), during which there were 410 re-revisions. The overall unadjusted probability of re-revision for all revision HKAs at one, five, and ten years after surgery were 2.7% (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.2 to 3.3), 10.7% (95% CI 9.6 to 11.9), and 16.2% (95% CI 14.5 to 17.9), respectively. Male sex (p < 0.001), younger age (p < 0.001), revision for septic indications (p < 0.001) or implant fracture (p = 0.010), a fixed hinge (p < 0.001), or surgery performed by a non-consultant grade (p = 0.023) were independently associated with an increased risk of re-revision. Conclusion. There were several factors associated with time to first revision. The re-revision rate was 16.2% at ten years; however, the risk factors associated with an increased risk of re-revision could be used to counsel patients regarding their outcome. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(1):47–55

Aims. The purpose is to determine the non-inferiority of a smartphone-based exercise educational care management system after primary knee arthroplasty compared with a traditional in-person physiotherapy rehabilitation model. Methods. A multicentre prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted evaluating the use of a smartphone-based care management system for primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and partial knee arthroplasty (PKA). Patients in the control group (n = 244) received the respective institution’s standard of care with formal physiotherapy. The treatment group (n = 208) were provided a smartwatch and smartphone application. Early outcomes assessed included 90-day knee range of movement, EuroQoL five-dimension five-level score, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacement (KOOS JR) score, 30-day single leg stance (SLS) time, Time up and Go (TUG) time, and need for manipulation under anaesthesia (MUA). Results. Overall, 90-day mean flexion was not significantly different between the control (121° (SD 11.7°)) and treatment groups (121. o. ; p = 0.559); 90-day mean SLS was 22.7 seconds (SD 9.8) in controls and 24.3 seconds (SD 20.8) in treatment (p = 0.519); 90-day mean TUG times were 10.1 seconds (SD 4.8) in control and 9.3 seconds (SD 3.3) in treatment (p = 0.139). Mean KOOS JR scores were significantly different between control group (73.6 (SD 13.4)) and treatment group (70.4 (SD 12.6); p = 0.026). MUAs were performed in nine (3.7%) patients in the control group and four (1.9%) in the treatment group (p = 0.398). Physiotherapy was performed by 230 (94.4%) of control group and 123 (59.3%) of treatment group (p < 0.001). There were no significant differences between groups in postoperative urgent care visits, or readmissions within 90 days, with significantly fewer emergency department visits in the treatment group (16 (8.2%) vs five (2.5%), p = 0.014). Conclusion. The use of the smartwatch/smartphone care platform demonstrated non-inferiority of clinically significant outcomes to traditional care models, while requiring significantly less postoperative physiotherapy and fewer emergency department visits. This platform could aid in decreasing postoperative costs, while improving patient engagement and communication with the healthcare team. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(6 Supple A):3–12

Aims. Orthopaedic surgeries are complex, frequently performed procedures associated with significant haemorrhage and perioperative blood transfusion. Given refinements in surgical techniques and changes to transfusion practices, we aim to describe contemporary transfusion practices in orthopaedic surgery in order to inform perioperative planning and blood banking requirements. Methods. We performed a retrospective cohort study of adult patients who underwent orthopaedic surgery at four Canadian hospitals between 2014 and 2016. We studied all patients admitted to hospital for nonarthroscopic joint surgeries, amputations, and fracture surgeries. For each surgery and surgical subgroup, we characterized the proportion of patients who received red blood cell (RBC) transfusion, the mean/median number of RBC units transfused, and exposure to platelets and plasma. Results. Of the 14,584 included patients, the most commonly performed surgeries were knee arthroplasty (24.8%), hip arthroplasty (24.6%), and hip fracture surgery (17.4%). A total of 10.3% of patients received RBC transfusion; the proportion of patients receiving RBC transfusions varied widely based on the surgical subgroup (0.0% to 33.1%). Primary knee arthroplasty and hip arthroplasty, the two most common surgeries, were associated with in-hospital transfusion frequencies of 2.8% and 4.5%, respectively. RBC transfusion occurred in 25.0% of hip fracture surgeries, accounting for the greatest total number of RBC units transfused in our cohort (38.0% of all transfused RBC units). Platelet and plasma transfusions were uncommon. Conclusion. Orthopaedic surgeries were associated with variable rates of transfusion. The rate of RBC transfusion is highly dependent on the surgery type. Identifying surgeries with the highest transfusion rates, and further evaluation of factors that contribute to transfusion in identified at-risk populations, can serve to inform perioperative planning and blood bank requirements, and facilitate pre-emptive transfusion mitigation strategies. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(10):850–857

Aims. As the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic passes, the challenge shifts to safe resumption of routine medical services, including elective orthopaedic surgery. Protocols including pre-operative self-isolation, COVID-19 testing, and surgery at a non-COVID-19 site have been developed to minimize risk of transmission. Despite this, it is likely that many patients will want to delay surgery for fear of contracting COVID-19. The aim of this study is to identify the number of patients who still want to proceed with planned elective orthopaedic surgery in this current environment. Methods. This is a prospective, single surgeon study of 102 patients who were on the waiting list for an elective hip or knee procedure during the COVID-19 pandemic. Baseline characteristics including age, ASA grade, COVID-19 risk, procedure type, surgical priority, and admission type were recorded. The primary outcome was patient consent to continue with planned surgical care after resumption of elective orthopaedic services. Subgroup analysis was also performed to determine if any specific patient factors influenced the decision to proceed with surgery. Results. Overall, 58 patients (56.8%) wanted to continue with planned surgical care at the earliest possibility. Patients classified as ASA I and ASA II were more likely to agree to surgery (60.5% and 60.0%, respectively) compared to ASA III and ASA IV patients (44.4% and 0.0%, respectively) (p = 0.01). In addition, patients undergoing soft tissue knee surgery were more likely to consent to surgery (90.0%) compared to patients undergoing primary hip arthroplasty (68.6%), primary knee arthroplasty (48.7%), revision hip or knee arthroplasty (0.0%), or hip and knee injections (43.8%) (p = 0.03). Conclusion. Restarting elective orthopaedic services during the COVID-19 pandemic remains a significant challenge. Given the uncertain environment, it is unsurprising that only 56% of patients were prepared to continue with their planned surgical care upon resumption of elective services. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-6:267–271

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

Aseptic loosening is the most common cause of failure following cemented total knee arthroplasty (TKA), and has been linked to poor cementation technique. We aimed to develop a consensus on the optimal technique for component cementation in TKA.