Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 5 of 5
Results per page:
The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 106-B, Issue 6 | Pages 573 - 581
1 Jun 2024
van Houtert WFC Strijbos DO Bimmel R Krijnen WP Jager J van Meeteren NLU van der Sluis G

Aims

To investigate the impact of consecutive perioperative care transitions on in-hospital recovery of patients who had primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) over an 11-year period.

Methods

This observational cohort study used electronic health record data from all patients undergoing preoperative screening for primary TKA at a Northern Netherlands hospital between 2009 and 2020. In this timeframe, three perioperative care transitions were divided into four periods: Baseline care (Joint Care, n = 171; May 2009 to August 2010), Function-tailored (n = 404; September 2010 to October 2013), Fast-track (n = 721; November 2013 to May 2018), and Prehabilitation (n = 601; June 2018 to December 2020). In-hospital recovery was measured using inpatient recovery of activities (IROA), length of stay (LOS), and discharge to preoperative living situation (PLS). Multivariable regression models were used to analyze the impact of each perioperative care transition on in-hospital recovery.


Bone & Joint Open
Vol. 5, Issue 11 | Pages 1003 - 1012
8 Nov 2024
Gabr A Fontalis A Robinson J Hage W O'Leary S Spalding T Haddad FS

Aims

The aim of this study was to compare patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) following isolated anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), with those following ACLR and concomitant meniscal resection or repair.

Methods

We reviewed prospectively collected data from the UK National Ligament Registry for patients who underwent primary ACLR between January 2013 and December 2022. Patients were categorized into five groups: isolated ACLR, ACLR with medial meniscus (MM) repair, ACLR with MM resection, ACLR with lateral meniscus (LM) repair, and ACLR with LM resection. Linear regression analysis, with isolated ACLR as the reference, was performed after adjusting for confounders.


Bone & Joint Open
Vol. 2, Issue 1 | Pages 48 - 57
19 Jan 2021
Asokan A Plastow R Kayani B Radhakrishnan GT Magan AA Haddad FS

Cementless knee arthroplasty has seen a recent resurgence in popularity due to conceptual advantages, including improved osseointegration providing biological fixation, increased surgical efficiency, and reduced systemic complications associated with cement impaction and wear from cement debris. Increasingly younger and higher demand patients are requiring knee arthroplasty, and as such, there is optimism cementless fixation may improve implant survivorship and functional outcomes.

Compared to cemented implants, the National Joint Registry (NJR) currently reports higher revision rates in cementless total knee arthroplasty (TKA), but lower in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA). However, recent studies are beginning to show excellent outcomes with cementless implants, particularly with UKA which has shown superior performance to cemented varieties. Cementless TKA has yet to show long-term benefit, and currently performs equivalently to cemented in short- to medium-term cohort studies. However, with novel concepts including 3D-printed coatings, robotic-assisted surgery, radiostereometric analysis, and kinematic or functional knee alignment principles, it is hoped they may help improve the outcomes of cementless TKA in the long-term. In addition, though cementless implant costs remain higher due to novel implant coatings, it is speculated cost-effectiveness can be achieved through greater surgical efficiency and potential reduction in revision costs. There is paucity of level one data on long-term outcomes between fixation methods and the cost-effectiveness of modern cementless knee arthroplasty.

This review explores recent literature on cementless knee arthroplasty, with regards to clinical outcomes, implant survivorship, complications, and cost-effectiveness; providing a concise update to assist clinicians on implant choice.

Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(1):48–57.


Bone & Joint Research
Vol. 7, Issue 3 | Pages 226 - 231
1 Mar 2018
Campi S Mellon SJ Ridley D Foulke B Dodd CAF Pandit HG Murray DW

Objectives

The primary stability of the cementless Oxford Unicompartmental Knee Replacement (OUKR) relies on interference fit (or press fit). Insufficient interference may cause implant loosening, whilst excessive interference could cause bone damage and fracture.

The aim of this study was to identify the optimal interference fit by measuring the force required to seat the tibial component of the cementless OUKR (push-in force) and the force required to remove the component (pull-out force).

Materials and Methods

Six cementless OUKR tibial components were implanted in 12 new slots prepared on blocks of solid polyurethane foam (20 pounds per cubic foot (PCF), Sawbones, Malmo, Sweden) with a range of interference of 0.1 mm to 1.9 mm using a Dartec materials testing machine HC10 (Zwick Ltd, Herefordshire, United Kingdom) . The experiment was repeated with cellular polyurethane foam (15 PCF), which is a more porous analogue for trabecular bone.


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 97-B, Issue 10_Supple_A | Pages 3 - 8
1 Oct 2015
Murray DW Liddle AD Dodd CAF Pandit H

There is a large amount of evidence available about the relative merits of unicompartmental and total knee arthroplasty (UKA and TKA). Based on the same evidence, different people draw different conclusions and as a result, there is great variability in the usage of UKA.

The revision rate of UKA is much higher than TKA and so some surgeons conclude that UKA should not be performed. Other surgeons believe that the main reason for the high revision rate is that UKA is easy to revise and, therefore, the threshold for revision is low. They also believe that UKA has many advantages over TKA such as a faster recovery, lower morbidity and mortality and better function. They therefore conclude that UKA should be undertaken whenever appropriate.

The solution to this argument is to minimise the revision rate of UKA, thereby addressing the main disadvantage of UKA. The evidence suggests that this will be achieved if surgeons use UKA for at least 20% of their knee arthroplasties and use implants that are appropriate for these broad indications.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B(10 Suppl A):3–8.