Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is an established and successful procedure. However, the design of prostheses continues to be modified in an attempt to optimise the functional outcome of the patient.

The aim of this study was to determine if patient outcome after TKA was influenced by the design of the prosthesis used.

A total of 212 patients (mean age 69; 43 to 92; 131 female (62%), 81 male (32%)) were enrolled in a single centre double-blind trial and randomised to receive either a Kinemax (group 1) or a Triathlon (group 2) TKA.

Patients were assessed pre-operatively, at six weeks, six months, one year and three years after surgery. The outcome assessments used were the Oxford Knee Score; range of movement; pain numerical rating scales; lower limb power output; timed functional assessment battery and a satisfaction survey. Data were assessed incorporating change over all assessment time points, using repeated measures analysis of variance longitudinal mixed models. Implant group 2 showed a significantly greater range of movement (p = 0.009), greater lower limb power output (p = 0.026) and reduced report of ‘worst daily pain’ (p = 0.003) over the three years of follow-up. Differences in Oxford Knee Score (p = 0.09), report of ‘average daily pain’ (p = 0.57) and timed functional performance tasks (p = 0.23) did not reach statistical significance. Satisfaction with outcome was significantly better in group 2 (p = 0.001).

These results suggest that patient outcome after TKA can be influenced by the prosthesis used.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:64–70.

In a prospective study between 2000 and 2005, 22 patients with primary osteoarthritis of the shoulder had a total shoulder arthroplasty with a standard five-pegged glenoid component, 12 with non-offset humeral head and ten with offset humeral head components. Over a period of 24 months the relative movement of the glenoid component with respect to the scapula was measured using radiostereometric analysis.

Nine glenoids needed reaming for erosion. There was a significant increase in rotation about all three axes with time (p < 0.001), the largest occurring about the longitudinal axis (anteversion-retroversion), with mean values of 3.8° and 1.9° for the non-offset and offset humeral head eroded subgroups, respectively. There was also a significant difference in rotation about the anteversion-retroversion axis (p = 0.01) and the varus-valgus (p < 0.001) z-axis between the two groups. The offset humeral head group reached a plateau at early follow-up with rotation about the z-axis, whereas the mean of the non-offset humeral head group at 24 months was three times greater than that of the offset group accounting for the highly significant difference between them.

The advent of computer-assisted knee replacement surgery has focused interest on the alignment of the components. However, there is confusion at times between the alignment of the limb as a whole and that of the components. The interaction between them is discussed in this article. Alignment is expressed relative to some reference axis or plane and measurements will vary depending on what is selected as the reference. The validity of different reference axes is discussed. Varying prosthetic alignment has direct implications for surrounding soft-tissue tension. In this context the interaction between alignment and soft-tissue balance is explored and the current knowledge of the relationship between alignment and outcome is summarised.

We describe a rare variant of mirror hand in a 20-year-old man who presented with multiple fingers. Radiographs revealed two ulnae (one vestigial) and a radius. There was duplication of the humeral head. The unique features of this case are the age of patient before the start of treatment and extension of the duplication proximal to the elbow.

We performed a prospective, randomised trial of 44 patients to compare the functional outcomes of a posterior-cruciate-ligament-retaining and posterior-cruciate-ligament-substituting total knee arthroplasty, and to gain a better understanding of the in vivo kinematic behaviour of both devices.

At follow-up at five years, no statistically significant differences were found in the clinical outcome measurements for either design. The prevalence of radiolucent lines and the survivorship were the same. In a subgroup of 15 knees, additional image-intensifier analysis in the horizontal and sagittal planes was performed during step-up and lunge activity. Our analysis revealed striking differences. Lunge activity showed a mean posterior displacement of both medial and lateral tibiofemoral contact areas (roll-back) which was greater and more consistent in the cruciate-substituting than in the cruciate-retaining group (medial p < 0.0001, lateral p = 0.011). The amount of posterior displacement could predict the maximum flexion which could be achieved (p = 0.018). Forward displacement of the tibiofemoral contact area in flexion during stair activity was seen more in the cruciate-retaining than in the cruciate-substituting group. This was attributed mainly to insufficiency of the posterior cruciate ligament and partially to that of the anterior cruciate ligament. We concluded that, despite similar clinical outcomes, there are significant kinematic differences between cruciate-retaining and cruciate-substituting arthroplasties.

We investigated the changes in surface roughness of retrieved femoral components in 18 men and four women at revision knee surgery. The mean age at revision was 68.4 years and the mean period of implantation was for 55.6 months. Eighteen implants were retrieved for aseptic loosening and four for infection. The surface changes in the articulating areas were inspected visually and the roughness (Ra) analysed with a profilometer. Parallel scratching and burnishing were the two main forms of damage. The mean Ra measurements in the articulating areas showed no statistically significant difference when compared with those in a control area on either side of the patellar groove at the apex of the femoral flange. This suggests that it is not essential to revise a well-fixed and correctly aligned femoral component where the polished surface has become burnished or bears fine parallel scratches, if the revision is conducted solely for failure of the tibial component.