The October 2024 Research Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Fracture risk among stroke survivors according to post-stroke disability status and stroke type; Noise-induced hearing loss: should surgeons be wearing ear protection during primary total joint replacement?; Intravenous dexamethasone in hip arthroscopy can enhance recovery; Patient-reported outcomes following periprosthetic joint infection of the hip and knee: a longitudinal, prospective observational study; When should surgery take place after weight loss?; Which type of surgery is the hardest physically and mentally?

Aims

In cases of severe periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) of the knee, salvage procedures such as knee arthrodesis (KA) or above-knee amputation (AKA) must be considered. As both treatments result in limitations in quality of life (QoL), we aimed to compare outcomes and factors influencing complication rates, mortality, and mobility.

The February 2024 Knee Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Do patients with hypoallergenic total knee arthroplasty implants for metal allergy do worse? An analysis of healthcare utilizations and patient-reported outcome measures; Defining a successful total knee arthroplasty; Incidence, microbiological studies, and factors associated with periprosthetic joint infection after total knee arthroplasty; A modified Delphi consensus statement on patellar instability; Cause for concern? Significant cement coverage in retrieved metaphyseal cones after revision total knee arthroplasty; Prevalence of post-traumatic osteoarthritis after anterior cruciate ligament injury remains high despite advances in surgical techniques; Cost-effectiveness of arthroscopic partial meniscectomy versus physical therapy for traumatic meniscal tears in patients aged under 45 years.

The August 2023 Knee Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Curettage and cementation of giant cell tumour of bone: is arthritis a given?; Anterior knee pain following total knee arthroplasty: does the patellar cement-bone interface affect postoperative anterior knee pain?; Nickel allergy and total knee arthroplasty; The use of artificial intelligence for the prediction of periprosthetic joint infection following aseptic revision total knee arthroplasty; Ambulatory unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: development of a patient selection tool using machine learning; Femoral asymmetry: a missing piece in knee alignment; Needle arthroscopy – a benefit to patients in the outpatient setting; Can lateral unicompartmental knees be done in a day-case setting?

Aims

The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of depressive and anxiety disorders prior to total hip (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and to assess their impact on the rates of any infection, revision, or reoperation.

The April 2023 Knee Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Does bariatric surgery reduce complications after total knee arthroplasty?; Mid-flexion stability in total knee arthroplasties implanted with kinematic alignment: posterior-stabilized versus medial-stabilized implants; Inflammatory response in robotic-arm-assisted versus conventional jig-based total knee arthroplasty; Journey II bicruciate stabilized (JII-BCS) and GENESIS II total knee arthroplasty: the CAPAbility, blinded, randomized controlled trial; Lifetime risk of revision and patient factors; Platelet-rich plasma use for hip and knee osteoarthritis in the USA; Where have the knee revisions gone?; Tibial component rotation in total knee arthroplasty: CT-based study of 1,351 tibiae.

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) remains an extremely challenging complication. We have focused on this issue more over the last decade than previously, but there are still many unanswered questions. We now have a workable definition that everyone should align to, but we need to continue to focus on identifying the organisms involved. Surgical strategies are evolving and care is becoming more patient-centred. There are some good studies under way. There are, however, still numerous problems to resolve, and the challenge of PJI remains a major one for the orthopaedic community. This annotation provides some up-to-date thoughts about where we are, and the way forward. There is still scope for plenty of research in this area.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(11):1193–1195.

Aims. We have previously reported the mid-term outcomes of revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) for flexion instability. At a mean of four years, there were no re-revisions for instability. The aim of this study was to report the implant survivorship and clinical and radiological outcomes of the same cohort of of patients at a mean follow-up of ten years. Methods. The original publication included 60 revision TKAs in 60 patients which were undertaken between 2000 and 2010. The mean age of the patients at the time of revision TKA was 65 years, and 33 (55%) were female. Since that time, 21 patients died, leaving 39 patients (65%) available for analysis. The cumulative incidence of any re-revision with death as a competing risk was calculated. Knee Society Scores (KSSs) were also recorded, and updated radiographs were reviewed. Results. The cumulative incidence of any re-revision was 13% at a mean of ten years. At the most recent-follow-up, eight TKAs had been re-revised: three for recurrent flexion instability (two fully revised to varus-valgus constrained implants (VVCs), and one posterior-stabilized (PS) implant converted to VVC, one for global instability (PS to VVC), two for aseptic loosening of the femoral component, and two for periprosthetic joint infection). The ten-year cumulative incidence of any re-revision for instability was 7%. The median KSS improved significantly from 45 (interquartile range (IQR) 40 to 50) preoperatively to 70 (IQR 45 to 80) at a mean follow-up of ten years (p = 0.031). Radiologically, two patients, who had not undergone revision, had evidence of loosening (one tibial and one patellar). The remaining components were well fixed. Conclusion. We found fair functional outcomes and implant survivorship at a mean of ten years after revision TKA for flexion instability with a PS implant. Recurrent instability and aseptic loosening were the most common indications for re-revision. Components with increased constraint, such as a VVC or hinged, should be used in these patients in order to reduce the risk of recurrent instability. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(10):1126–1131

Aims

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) occurs in approximately 1% to 2% of total knee arthroplasties (TKA) presenting multiple challenges, such as difficulty in diagnosis, technical complexity, and financial costs. Two-stage exchange is the gold standard for treating PJI but emerging evidence suggests 'two-in-one' single-stage revision as an alternative, delivering comparable outcomes, reduced morbidity, and cost-effectiveness. This study investigates five-year results of modified single-stage revision for treatment of PJI following TKA with bone loss.

Aims

The success of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is usually measured using functional outcome scores and revision-free survivorship. However, reporting the lifetime risk of revision may be more meaningful to patients when gauging risks, especially in younger patients. We aimed to assess the lifetime risk of revision for patients in different age categories at the time of undergoing primary TKA.

Aims

Varus-valgus constrained (VVC) devices are typically used in revision settings, often with stems to mitigate the risk of aseptic loosening. However, in at least one system, the VVC insert is compatible with the primary posterior-stabilized (PS) femoral component, which may be an option in complex primary situations. We sought to determine the implant survivorship, radiological and clinical outcomes, and complications when this VVC insert was coupled with a PS femur without stems in complex primary total knee arthroplasties (TKAs).

Aims. Metal allergy in knee arthroplasty patients is a controversial topic. We aimed to conduct a scoping review to clarify the management of metal allergy in primary and revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Methods. Studies were identified by searching electronic databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid MEDLINE, and Embase, from their inception to November 2020, for studies evaluating TKA patients with metal hypersensitivity/allergy. All studies reporting on diagnosing or managing metal hypersensitivity in TKA were included. Data were extracted and summarized based on study design, study population, interventions and outcomes. A practical guide is then formulated based on the available evidence. Results. We included 38 heterogeneous studies (two randomized controlled trials, six comparative studies, 19 case series, and 11 case reports). The evidence indicates that metal hypersensitivity is a rare complication with some histopathological features leading to pain and dissatisfaction with no reliable screening tests preoperatively. Hypoallergenic implants are viable alternatives for patients with self-reported/confirmed metal hypersensitivity if declared preoperatively; however, concerns remain over their long-term outcomes with ceramic implants outperforming titanium nitride-coated implants and informed consent is paramount. For patients presenting with painful TKA, metal hypersensitivity is a diagnosis of exclusion where patch skin testing, lymphocyte transformation test, and synovial biopsies are useful adjuncts before revision surgery is undertaken to hypoallergenic implants with shared decision-making and informed consent. Conclusion. Using the limited available evidence in the literature, we provide a practical approach to metal hypersensitivity in TKA patients. Future national/registry-based studies are needed to identify the scale of metal hypersensitivity, agreed diagnostic criteria, and management strategies. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(10):785–795

Aims. Current guidelines consider analyses of joint aspirates, including leucocyte cell count (LC) and polymorphonuclear percentage (PMN%) as a diagnostic mainstay of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). It is unclear if these parameters are subject to a certain degree of variability over time. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the variation of LC and PMN% in patients with aseptic revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Methods. We conducted a prospective, double-centre study of 40 patients with 40 knee joints. Patients underwent joint aspiration at two different time points with a maximum period of 120 days in between these interventions and without any events such as other joint aspirations or surgeries. The main indications for TKA revision surgery were aseptic implant loosening (n = 24) and joint instability (n = 11). Results. Overall, 80 synovial fluid samples of 40 patients were analyzed. The average time period between the joint aspirations was 50 days (SD 32). There was a significantly higher percentage change in LC when compared to PMN% (44.1% (SD 28.6%) vs 27.3% (SD 23.7%); p = 0.003). When applying standard definition criteria, LC counts were found to skip back and forth between the two time points with exceeding the thresholds in up to 20% of cases, which was significantly more compared to PMN% for the European Bone and Joint Infection Society (EBJIS) criteria (p = 0.001), as well as for Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) (p = 0.029). Conclusion. LC and PMN% are subject to considerable variation. According to its higher interindividual variance, LC evaluation might contribute to false-positive or false-negative results in PJI assessment. Single LC testing prior to TKA revision surgery seems to be insufficient to exclude PJI. On the basis of the obtained results, PMN% analyses overrule LC measurements with regard to a conclusive diagnostic algorithm. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(8):566–572

Aims

The proportion of arthroplasties performed in the ambulatory setting has increased considerably. However, there are concerns whether same-day discharge may increase the risk of complications. The aim of this study was to compare 90-day outcomes between inpatient arthroplasties and outpatient arthroplasties performed at an ambulatory surgery centre (ASC), and determine whether there is a learning curve associated with performing athroplasties in an ASC.

Aims. Tibial cones are often utilized in revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) with metaphyseal defects. Because there are few studies evaluating mid-term outcomes with a sufficient cohort, the purpose of this study was to evaluate tibial cone survival and complications in revision TKAs with tibial cones at minimum follow-up of five years. Methods. A retrospective review was completed from September 2006 to March 2015, evaluating 67 revision TKAs (64 patients) that received one specific porous tibial cone during revision TKA. The final cohort was composed of 62 knees (59 patients) with five years of clinical follow-up or reoperation. The mean clinical follow-up of the TKAs with minimum five-year clinical follow-up was 7.6 years (5.0 to 13.3). Survivorship analysis was performed with the endpoints of tibial cone revision for aseptic loosening, tibial cone revision for any reason, and reoperation. We also evaluated periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), risk factors for failure, and performed a radiological review. Results. The rate of cone revision for aseptic loosening was 6.5%, with an eight-year survival of 95%. Significant bone loss (Anderson Orthopaedic Research Institute grade 3) was associated with cone revision for aseptic loosening (p = 0.002). The rate of cone revision for any reason was 17.7%, with an eight-year survival of 84%. Sixteen percent of knees developed PJI following revision. A pre-revision diagnosis of reimplantation as part of a two-stage exchange protocol for infection was associated with both PJI (p < 0.001) and tibial cone revision (p = 0.001). Conclusion. Mid-term results of tibial cones showed a survivorship free of cone revision for aseptic loosening of 95%. Patients with significant bone loss were more likely to have re-revision for tibial cone failure. Infection was common, and patients receiving cones at reimplantation were more likely to develop PJI and undergo cone revision. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(6 Supple A):158–164

Aims. Stemmed tibial components are frequently used in revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The purpose of this study was to evaluate patient satisfaction, overall pain, and diaphyseal tibial pain in patients who underwent revision TKA with cemented or uncemented stemmed tibial components. Methods. This is a retrospective cohort study involving 110 patients with revision TKA with cemented versus uncemented stemmed tibial components. Patients who underwent revision TKA with stemmed tibial components over a 15-year period at a single institution with at least two-year follow-up were assessed. Pain was evaluated through postal surveys. There were 63 patients with cemented tibial stems and 47 with uncemented stems. Radiographs and Knee Society Scores were used to evaluate for objective findings associated with pain or patient dissatisfaction. Postal surveys were analyzed using Fisher’s exact test and the independent-samples t-test. Logistic regression was used to adjust for age, sex, and preoperative bone loss. Results. No statistically significant differences in stem length, operative side, or indications for revision were found between the two cohorts. Tibial pain at the end of the stem was present in 25.3% (16/63) of cemented stems and 25.5% (12/47) of uncemented stems (p = 1.000); 74.6% (47/63) of cemented patients and 78.7% (37/47) of uncemented patients were satisfied following revision TKA (p = 0.657). Conclusion. There were no differences in patient satisfaction, overall pain, and diaphyseal tibial pain in cemented and uncemented stemmed tibial components in revision TKA. Patient factors, rather than implant selection and surgical technique, likely play a large role in the presence of postoperative pain. Stemmed tibial components have been shown to be a possible source of pain in revision TKA. There is no difference in patient satisfaction or postoperative pain with cemented or uncemented stemmed tibial components in revision TKA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(6 Supple A):165–170