Aims. During total knee replacement (TKR), surgeons can choose whether or not to resurface the patella, with advantages and disadvantages of each approach. Recently, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommended always resurfacing the patella, rather than never doing so. NICE found insufficient evidence on selective resurfacing (surgeon’s decision based on intraoperative findings and symptoms) to make recommendations. If effective, selective resurfacing could result in optimal individualized patient care. This protocol describes a randomized controlled trial to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of primary TKR with always patellar resurfacing compared to selective patellar resurfacing. Methods. The PAtellar Resurfacing Trial (PART) is a patient- and assessor-blinded multicentre, pragmatic parallel two-arm randomized superiority trial of adults undergoing elective primary TKR for primary osteoarthritis at NHS hospitals in England, with an embedded internal pilot phase (ISRCTN 33276681). Participants will be randomly allocated intraoperatively on a 1:1 basis (stratified by centre and implant type (cruciate-retaining vs cruciate-sacrificing)) to always resurface or selectively resurface the patella, once the surgeon has confirmed sufficient patellar thickness for resurfacing and that constrained implants are not required. The primary analysis will compare the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) one year after surgery. Secondary outcomes include patient-reported outcome measures at three months, six months, and one year (Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, OKS, EuroQol five-dimension five-level questionnaire, patient satisfaction, postoperative complications, need for further surgery, resource use, and costs). Cost-effectiveness will be measured for the lifetime of the patient. Overall, 530 patients will be recruited to obtain 90% power to detect a four-point difference in OKS between the groups one year after surgery, assuming up to 40% resurfacing in the selective group. Conclusion. The trial findings will provide evidence about the clinical and cost-effectiveness of always patellar resurfacing compared to selective patellar resurfacing. This will inform future NICE guidelines on primary TKR and the role of selective patellar resurfacing. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(6):464–478

There is a lack of evidence surrounding selective patella resurfacing, but patella cartilage loss at time of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is often used as an indication in those who perform it. This study compares the outcomes of TKA without patella resurfacing in patients with and without patella cartilage loss (PFOA). Prospective case control study of 209 consecutive patients undergoing cruciate retaining single radius TKA without patella resurfacing for KL≥3 osteoarthritis. The presence and location of full thickness patella cartilage loss was documented intra-operatively at TKA, identifying n=108 cases with PFOA (mean age 70±9.7, mean BMI 31±6.2, 72 (67%) female) Vs n=101 controls without PFOA (age 68±9.2, BMI31±5.6, 52 (51%) female). Primary outcome measure was improvement in the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) at one year. There were more females in the PFOA group (67% Vs 51%, p=0.037), but no other preoperative differences. There was no difference in preoperative OKS between patients with patella cartilage loss (20.6±7.9) and those without (21.0±7.2, p=0.720). There was no difference in OKS improvement following TKA without patella resurfacing between those with full thickness patella cartilage loss (14.2±9.8) and those without (15.4±9.5, p=0.365). Facet involvement (number and location) did not affect OKSs. No differences were found in the individual OKS questions between groups (p>0.05). There was no difference in one-year OKS or improvements therein between patients with and without full thickness patella cartilage loss treated with single radius cruciate retaining TKA without patella resurfacing, questioning its use an indication for selective patella resurfacing

It is a not so uncommon clinical scenario: well-fixed, well-aligned, balanced total knee arthroplasty with continued pain. However, radiographs also demonstrate an unresurfaced patella. The debate continues and the controversy remains as whether or not to routinely resurface the patella in total knee arthroplasty. In perhaps the most widely referenced article on the topic, the overall revision rates were no different between the resurfaced (9%) and the unresurfaced (12%) groups and thus their conclusion was that similar results can be obtained with and without resurfacing. However, a deeper look in to the data in this study shows that 4 times more knees in the unresurfaced group were revised for patellofemoral problems. A more recent study concluded that selectively not resurfacing the patella provided similar results when compared to routinely resurfacing. The study does emphasise however, that this conclusion depends greatly on femoral component design and operative diagnoses. This suggests that selective resurfacing with a so-called “patella friendly” femoral component in cases of tibio-femoral osteoarthritis, is a safe and effective strategy. Finally, registry data would support routine resurfacing with a 2.3 times higher relative risk of revision seen in the unresurfaced TKA. Regardless of which side of the debate one lies, the not so uncommon clinical scenario remains; what do we do with the painful TKA with an unresurfaced patella. Precise and accurate diagnosis of the etiology of a painful TKA can be very difficult, and there is likely a strong bias towards early revision with secondary patellar resurfacing in the painful TKA with an unresurfaced TKA. At first glance, secondary resurfacing is associated with relatively poor outcomes. Correia, et al. reported that only half the patients underwent revision TKA with secondary resurfacing had resolution of their complaints. Similarly, only 53% of patients in another series were satisfied with the procedure and pain relief. The conclusions that can be drawn from these studies and others are that either routine patellar resurfacing should be performed in all TKA or, perhaps more importantly, we need to better understand the etiology of pain in an otherwise well-aligned, well-balanced, well-fixed TKA. It is this author's contingency that the presence of an unresurfaced patella leads surgeons to reoperate earlier, without truly identifying the etiology of pain or dissatisfaction. This strong bias; basically there is something more that can be done, therefore we should do it, is the same bias that leads to early revision of partial knee arthroplasty. While very difficult, we as knee surgeons should not revise a partial knee or secondarily resurface a patella due to pain or dissatisfaction. Doing so, unfortunately, only works about half the time. The diagnostic algorithm for evaluating the painful, uresurfaced TKA includes routinely ruling out infection with serum markers and an aspiration. Pre-arthroplasty radiographs should be obtained to confirm suitability and severity of disease for an arthroplasty. An intra-articular diagnostic injection with Marcaine +/− corticosteroid should provide significant pain relief. MARS MRI may be beneficial to evaluate edema within the patella. Lastly, operative implant stickers to confirm implant manufacturer and type are critical as some implants perform less favorably with unresurfaced patellae. To date, no studies of secondary resurfacing describe the results of this, or similar, algorithms for defining patellofemoral problems in the unresurfaced TKA and therefore it is still difficult to conclude that poor results are not simply due to our inherent bias towards early revision and secondary resurfacing of the unresurfaced patella

In 1999 a statement of best practice in primary total hip replacement was approved by the Council of the British Orthopaedic Association (BOA) and by the British Association for Surgery of the Knee (BASK) to provide a basis for regional and national auditable standards: we have compared practice in the North West of England to this document to ascertain adherence to this guide to best practice. A direct comparison of data held on the North West Hip Arthroplasty Register for 2001/2002 and BASK/BOA guidelines was performed. 86 surgeons from 26 hospitals were included in the study. A mean of 93.3% of operations were performed in the surgeon’s usual theatre. All of these theatres had vertical laminar air flow systems. 42.2% of respondents routinely used exhaust suits. 68.1% of respondents routinely used impermeable disposable gowns. All surgeons use some form of anti-thromboembolic prophylaxis. 66.2% use a combination of both mechanical and chemical means. All surgeons used antibiotic prophylaxis. The most popular choice of antibiotic was a cephalosporin. 93.7% of surgeons routinely use antibiotic-loaded cement. The PFC and Kinemax prostheses were the most commonly used pros-theses. Interestingly, 97.7% of all first choice implants were cemented. Only 2 surgeons used uncemented TKR. 69.8% of surgeons used a posterior cruciate retaining design. A midline longitudinal skin incision is used by 87.2% of surgeons, a medial longitudinal skin incision by 7.0% and a lateral longitudinal skin incision by 5.8% 0f surgeons. A medial parapatellar capsular incision is preferred by 91.9% with the remainder using mid vastus or trivector retaining capsulotomy. Closure of capsulotomies is performed in flexion by 65.1% and in extension by 34.9%. In patients with osteoarthritis 38.4% routinely resurfaced the patella, 34.9% never resurfaced the patella and 26.7% selectively resurfaced. This was in direct contrast to practice for patients with rheumatoid arthritis in whom 66.3% routinely resurfaced the patella, 22.1% never resurfaced the patella and 11.6% selectively resurfaced. This study has demonstrated considerable variation of practice in hip arthroplasty across the North West region and significant divergence from the BASK/BOA statement of best practice. The introduction of a properly funded national arthroplasty register will surely help to clarify the effect of such diverse practice on patient outcome

Whether or not to resurface the patella in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) remains controversial. Several methods of dealing with the patella exist: ALWAYS resurface; NEVER resurface; SOMETIMES resurface. There is good reason to consider selective patellar resurfacing. First, in an age of partial knee arthroplasty we have become more tuned in to analyzing patterns of arthritis. In TKA there is a high percentage of patients who do not have significant patellar cartilage wear or anterolateral knee pain. These patients may be candidates for leaving the patella unresurfaced in TKA. Arno et al found that 42% of patients had no significant patellar arthritis at the time of TKA. Roberts et al found that only 15% of patients should undergo patella resurfacing based on the presence of exposed bone on the patella; the other 85% could be considered suitable for leaving the patella unresurfaced. Second, despite a cumulative incidence of less than 5–10%, problems related to patellar resurfacing account for perhaps the most catastrophic complications encountered, with treatments that have limited success. These complications include fracture, avascular necrosis, extensor mechanism disruption, and anterior knee pain. Third, it is a fallacy to think that anterior knee pain (AKP) does not exist despite primary patellar resurfacing in TKA. Meftah (Ranawat) et al found that AKP persists in 30% of patients and new AKP develops in 10% of patients after TKA with patellar resurfacing. Barrack et al found that with patellar resurfacing the incidence of AKP is 28% in patients without preop AKP and 9% in those with preop AKP. They also found that without patellar resurfacing the incidence of new AKP was 14% and persistent AKP was 23%. Fourth, only roughly 44–64% of patients who undergo secondary patellar resurfacing for AKP after TKA with an unresurfaced patella actually get relief of their pain, suggesting that there is some other etiology of anterior knee pain. Residual component malalignment, boxy femoral components, PF overstuffing, referred pain or asymmetric resurfacing may explain ongoing pain. Finally, the data in well-designed studies show that selective patellar resurfacing can produce similar outcomes with and without resurfacing, particularly in those without significant patellar arthritis. In multiple studies, higher rates of secondary surgery occur when the patella is left unresurfaced in primary TKA, but this is for “pain” without clear etiology. On the other hand secondary surgery is rarely performed in TKA with patellar resurfacing for “pain” only, despite its high incidence. The quality of patellar cartilage at the time of primary TKA should be considered, as that may be the best indicator of whether a knee will do well without patellar resurfacing (that is, selective patellar resurfacing may be a better idea than never resurfacing the patella). While patellar resurfacing remains controversial in modern TKA, excellent outcomes are achievable with, and without, primary patellar resurfacing. Selectively leaving the patella unresurfaced when there is limited patellar arthritis may not only be highly effective, but it may also limit the incidence of secondary resurfacing that may occur with more substantial patellar arthritis while also minimizing the risk of some of the devastating complications that can occur due to patellar resurfacing in TKA

Whether to resurface the patella during a primary Total Knee Replacement (TKR) performed as a treatment of degenerative osteoarthritis remain a controversial issue. Patellar resurfacing was introduced because early implants were not designed to accommodate the native patella in an anatomic fashion during the range of motion. Complications related to patella resurfacing became a primary concern and have been associated with the variable revision rates often report post TKR. Subsequent modifications in implant design have been made to offer the surgeon option of leaving the patella un-resurfaced. Numerous clinical trials have been done to determine the superiority of each option. Unfortunately, there is little consensus and surgeon preference remains the primary variable. One of the major reasons given to support patella resurfacing is to eliminate Anterior Knee Pain post operatively. However, studies have shown that this problem was not exclusively found in non-resurfaced patients so the author conclude that anterior knee pain is probably related to component design or to the details of the surgical technique, such as component rotation rather that whether or not the patella is resurfaced. An increasing rate of complications with the extensor mechanism after patellar resurfacing led to the concept of selective resurfacing of the patella in TKR. Decision making algorithms with basis of clinical, radiographic and intraoperative parameters have been developed to determine which patients are suitable for patella resurfacing and which are suitable for patella non-resurfacing. Finally, the continued study of this topic with longer follow up term in randomized, controlled, clinical trials remains essential in our understanding of patella in TKR. The development of joint registry will allow surgeons to draw conclusions on the basis of larger numbers of patients and will improve the reporting of the results of patellar non resurfacing in clinical trials. In general, surgeons in United States always resurface while their counterparts in Europe tend to never resurface

When dealing with the patella in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) there are three philosophies. Some advocate resurfacing in all cases, others do not resurface, and a third group selectively resurfaces the patella. The literature does not offer one clear and consistent message on the topic. Treatment of the patella and the ultimate result is multifactorial. Factors include the patient, surgical technique, and implant design. With respect to the patient, inflammatory versus non-inflammatory arthritis, pre-operative presence or absence of anterior knee pain, age, sex, height, weight, and BMI affect results of TKA. Surgical technique steps to enhance the patellofemoral articulation include: 1) Restore the mechanical axis to facilitate patellofemoral tracking. 2) Select the appropriate femoral component size with respect to the AP dimension of the femur. 3) When performing anterior chamfer resection, measure the amount of bone removed in the center of the resection and compare to the prosthesis. Do not overstuff the patellofemoral articulation by taking an inadequate amount of bone. 4) Rotationally align the femur appropriately using a combination of the AP axis, the transepicondylar axis, the posterior condylar axis, and the tibial shaft axis. 5) If faced with whether to medialise or lateralise the femoral component, always lateralise. This will enhance patellofemoral tracking. 6) When resurfacing the patella, only evert the patella after all other bony resections have been performed. Remove peripheral osteophytes and measure the thickness of the patella prior to resection. Make every effort to leave at least 15 mm of bone and never leave less than 13 mm. 7) Resect the patella. The presenter prefers a freehand technique using the insertions of the patellar tendon and quadriceps tendon as a guide, sawing from inferior to superior, then from medial to lateral to ensure a smooth, flat, symmetrical resection. Medialise the patellar component and measure the thickness of reconstruction. 8) When not resurfacing the patella, surgeons generally remove all the peripheral osteophytes, and some perform denervation using electrocautery around the perimeter. 9) Determine appropriate patellofemoral tracking only after the tourniquet is released. 10) Close the knee in flexion so as not to tether the soft tissues about the patella and the extensor. With or without patellar resurfacing, implant design plays in important role in minimizing patellofemoral complications. Newer designs feature a so-called “swept back” femur in which the chamfer resection is deepened, and patellofemoral overstuffing is minimised. Lateralizing the trochlear groove on the anterior flange, orienting it in valgus alignment, and gradually transitioning to midline have improved patellofemoral tracking. Extending the trochlear groove as far as possible into the tibiofemoral articulation has decreased patellofemoral crepitation and patellar clunk in posterior stabilised designs. With respect to the tibial component, providing patellar relief anteriorly in the tibial polyethylene has facilitated range of motion and reduced patellar impingement in deep flexion. On the patella side, the all-polyethylene patella remains the gold standard. While data exist to support all three viewpoints in the treatment of the patella in TKA, it is the presenter's opinion that the overwhelming data support patella resurfacing at the time of primary TKA. It is clear from the literature that the status of the patellofemoral articulation following TKA is multifactorial. Surgical technique and implant design are key to a well-functioning patellofemoral articulation. Pain is the primary reason patients seek to undergo TKA. Since our primary goal is to relieve pain, and there has been a higher incidence of anterior knee pain reported without patellar resurfacing, why not resurface the patella?

Arthroscopic selective resurfacing of the knee may be considered a treatment option for selected patients with focal articular damage. From more than 2 years in IX Division of Rizzoli Orthopaedics Institute(Bologna- Italy) we use, in selected cases with only one articular compartment damaged, an innovative resurfacing prosthesis. We mad a new design of focal resurfacing (MAIOR) that is possible to implant with arthroscopic technique and that realize both mini-invasive and mini-traumatic surgery. The fixation method of the MAIOR allows higher osteointegration by biomaterials and hydrossiapatite of new generation that permit a press-fit fixation of the implant. The new philosophy of this implant consist of early focal treatment with low compromise of bone. Many surgeons, in case of focal articular damage, prefer to attend to made an unique definitive surgical operation when the degenerative changes are more severe. This new implant permit to substitute, also in arthroscopic technique, only the articular damage and to avoid to attend a more important and diffuse articualr damage. It is an uncemented, focal resurfacing prosthesis that requires minimal bone sacrifice and utilizes a minimal invasive surgical (MIS) approach with or without arthroscopic assistance. In a prospective and consecutive study, 78 patients were followed up at least for 12 months. Subjective pain and joint function were assessed using Visual analogue scale (VAS) and Knee society scores respectively. The preliminary results are interesting and encouraging with subjective evaluation equal to 85% of normal knee. Significant reduction of pain and improvement in joint function was observed. Although, long term study will determine the real performance of the prosthesis, trend seems to be positive

The December 2024 Knee Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty in the same patient?; Lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: is it a good option?; The fate of the unresurfaced patellae in contemporary total knee arthroplasty: early- to mid-term results; Tibial baseplate migration is not associated with change in PROMs and clinical scores after total knee arthroplasty; Unexpected positive intraoperative cultures in aseptic revision knee arthroplasty: what effect does this have?; Kinematic or mechanical alignment in total knee arthroplasty surgery?; Revision total knee arthroplasty achieves minimal clinically important difference faster than primary total knee arthroplasty; Outcomes after successful DAIR for periprosthetic joint infection in total knee arthroplasty.

Purpose: Despite the excellent results of total knee arthroplasty (TKA), controversy over whether or not to resurface the patella persists. Anterior knee pain, which occurs with variable frequency, continues to be a problem in a subset of the TKA patient population. Some clinicians advocate resurfacing all patellae while others cite the complications attributed to patellar resurfacing as reasons to avoid this aspect of the procedure. Still others favour selective resurfacing based on subjective criteria. To address this clinical controversy, we prospectively randomized patients receiving TKA into two groups, those receiving patellar resurfacing and those left without resurfacing to determine clinical outcomes and revisions at five and 10 years postoperatively. Our primary objective was to compare the revision rate following TKA between the two study groups. Secondarily, we compared pain and function at five and 10 years and knee range of motion (ROM) over the first year. Method: Patients receiving TKA were prospectively enrolled in the study and randomized intraoperatively to either receive patellar resurfacing or have no patellar intervention. All surgeries were performed through the standard medial parapatellar approach. The Smith and Nephew Profix TKA system was implanted in all cases and all subjects followed a standardized post-operative regimen. Subjects were assessed pre-operatively and at 6 months, 1, 3, 5 and 10 years postoperatively for knee ROM, function, and pain using the WOMAC and SF-36 questionnaires. Re-operations and revisions were also documented. Results: Thirty-nine patients were enrolled in the study. There was 83% patient retention at five years and 74% at 10 years. Study groups were similar in baseline characteristics. At five years, three (18%) revisions had been performed in the retained patella group and one (5%) in the resurfaced group (p=0.31). There were no further revisions between five and 10 years. ROM was similar between the groups at all evaluations (p> 0.05). SF-36 and WOMAC scores demonstrated that both groups improved their pain and function significantly following surgery (p< 0.04). Conclusion: The decision whether or not to resurface the patella during TKA remains controversial. This study demonstrated that initial results with either technique are comparable, but it appears that there may be clinically significant differences by five years postoperatively. These trends continued throughout the study and were statistically significant at the 10 year mark. Revision surgery was required in 18% of the retained group compared to 5% in the re-surfaced group

Aims

This prospective study reports longitudinal, within-patient, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) over a 15-year period following cemented single radius total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Secondary aims included reporting PROMs trajectory, 15-year implant survival, and patient attrition from follow-up.

Aims

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the influence of patellar resurfacing following cruciate-retaining (CR) and posterior-stabilized (PS) total knee arthroplasty (TKA) on the incidence of anterior knee pain, knee-specific patient-reported outcome measures, complication rates, and reoperation rates.

Aims

The aims of this study were to investigate the ability to kneel after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) without patellar resurfacing, and its effect on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Secondary aims included identifying which kneeling positions were most important to patients, and the influence of radiological parameters on the ability to kneel before and after TKA.

In recent years tribological development of knee replacement impants has beeen introduced with several benefits. However, concomitant problems were noticed following widespread use. High-flexion total knee replacement (PFC RPF DePuy) has been developed with a view to improve flexion and the design is expected to have a better patello-femoral biomechanics. However, high secondary patella resurfacing rate has been noticed in the current series. We have retrospectively reviewed 119 knees in 96 patients who underwent RPF knee replacement with selective patellar resurfacing from 2006 to 2010 by the senior author. 71 were performed without primary resurfacing while 48 in knees patella was resurfaced primarily due to significant symptomatic arthritic changes. Majority were females (57 versus 39 males). Average follow-up period was 37 (12-62) months. Twelve (16.9%) knees were subjected to secondary resurfacing due to continuing anterior knee pain. Average time from primary total knee replacement to secondary resurfacing was 18 months (8-35). Most of the patients were satisfied following the secondary resurfacing. Mean Oxford Knee Score in the group where the patella was resurfaced primarily was 33.1 (9-48), in the group where the patella was not resurfaced 32.8 (11-47), in the secondary resurfacing group 31.8 (14-43) and in the revision group 20.5 (16-25). RPF knee replacements in our series have a considerably higher rate of secondary patellar resurfacing as compared with published literature. We recommend primary patellar resurfacing of all RPF knee replacements to avoid this problem. Further analysis of the prosthetic design would be beneficial in relation to clinical outcome. No of patients-96. Total no of knee-118. Av age-66.5. Females-57. Males-39. Patella not resurfaced- 73. Resurfaced-45. Revised-10(13.7%). Revision to TKR (TC3) for different reason-3(2.54%). Average time from primary to secondary resurfacing-

Aims

Debate remains whether the patella should be resurfaced during total knee replacement (TKR). For non-resurfaced TKRs, we estimated what the revision rate would have been if the patella had been resurfaced, and examined the risk of re-revision following secondary patellar resurfacing.

Aims

Adductor canal block (ACB) has emerged as an alternative to femoral nerve block (FNB) for analgesia after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The optimal duration of maintenance of the ACB is still questionable. The purpose of this study was to compare the analgesic benefits and physiotherapy (PT) outcomes of single-shot ACB to two different regimens of infusion of the continuous ACB, 24-hour and 48-hour infusion.