Aims

The aim of this study was to determine the risk of tibial eminence avulsion intraoperatively for bi-unicondylar knee arthroplasty (Bi-UKA), with consideration of the effect of implant positioning, overstuffing, and sex, compared to the risk for isolated medial unicondylar knee arthroplasty (UKA-M) and bicruciate-retaining total knee arthroplasty (BCR-TKA).

Objectives. Up to 40% of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) revisions are performed for unexplained pain which may be caused by elevated proximal tibial bone strain. This study investigates the effect of tibial component metal backing and polyethylene thickness on bone strain in a cemented fixed-bearing medial UKA using a finite element model (FEM) validated experimentally by digital image correlation (DIC) and acoustic emission (AE). Materials and Methods. A total of ten composite tibias implanted with all-polyethylene (AP) and metal-backed (MB) tibial components were loaded to 2500 N. Cortical strain was measured using DIC and cancellous microdamage using AE. FEMs were created and validated and polyethylene thickness varied from 6 mm to 10 mm. The volume of cancellous bone exposed to < -3000 µε (pathological loading) and < -7000 µε (yield point) minimum principal (compressive) microstrain and > 3000 µε and > 7000 µε maximum principal (tensile) microstrain was computed. Results. Experimental AE data and the FEM volume of cancellous bone with compressive strain < -3000 µε correlated strongly: R = 0.947, R. 2. = 0.847, percentage error 12.5% (p < 0.001). DIC and FEM data correlated: R = 0.838, R. 2. = 0.702, percentage error 4.5% (p < 0.001). FEM strain patterns included MB lateral edge concentrations; AP concentrations at keel, peg and at the region of load application. Cancellous strains were higher in AP implants at all loads: 2.2- (10 mm) to 3.2-times (6 mm) the volume of cancellous bone compressively strained < -7000 µε. Conclusion. AP tibial components display greater volumes of pathologically overstrained cancellous bone than MB implants of the same geometry. Increasing AP thickness does not overcome these pathological forces and comes at the cost of greater bone resection. Cite this article: C. E. H. Scott, M. J. Eaton, R. W. Nutton, F. A. Wade, S. L. Evans, P. Pankaj. Metal-backed versus all-polyethylene unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: Proximal tibial strain in an experimentally validated finite element model. Bone Joint Res 2017;6:22–30. DOI:10.1302/2046-3758.61.BJR-2016-0142.R1

Revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a complex procedure which carries both a greater risk for patients and greater cost for the treating hospital than does a primary TKA. As well as the increased cost of peri-operative investigations, blood transfusions, surgical instrumentation, implants and operating time, there is a well-documented increased length of stay which accounts for most of the actual costs associated with surgery.

We compared revision surgery for infection with revision for other causes (pain, instability, aseptic loosening and fracture). Complete clinical, demographic and economic data were obtained for 168 consecutive revision TKAs performed at a tertiary referral centre between 2005 and 2012.

Revision surgery for infection was associated with a mean length of stay more than double that of aseptic cases (21.5 vs 9.5 days, p < 0.0001). The mean cost of a revision for infection was more than three times that of an aseptic revision (£30 011 (sd 4514) vs £9655 (sd 599.7), p < 0.0001).

Current NHS tariffs do not fully reimburse the increased costs of providing a revision knee surgery service. Moreover, especially as greater costs are incurred for infected cases. These losses may adversely affect the provision of revision surgery in the NHS.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:197–201.