A technique for performing allograft-augmented revision total knee replacement (TKR) using computer assistance is described, on the basis of the results in 14 patients. Bone deficits were made up with impaction grafting. Femoral grafting was made possible by the construction of a retaining wall or dam which allowed pressurisation and retention of the graft. Tibial grafting used a mixture of corticocancellous and morsellised allograft. The position of the implants was monitored by the computer system and adjusted while the cement was setting. The outcome was determined using a six-parameter, quantitative technique (the Perth CT protocol) which measured the alignment of the prosthesis and provided an objective score. The final outcomes were not perfect with errors being made in femoral rotation and in producing a mismatch between the femoral and tibial components. In spite of the shortcomings the alignments were comparable in accuracy with those after primary TKR. Computer assistance shows considerable promise in producing accurate alignment in revision TKR with bone deficits

Most problems encountered in complex revision total knee arthroplasty can be managed with the wide range of implant systems currently available. Modular metaphyseal sleeves, metallic augments and cones provide stability even with significant bone loss. Hinged designs substitute for significant ligamentous deficiencies. Catastrophic failure that precludes successful reconstruction can be encountered. The alternatives to arthroplasty in such drastic situations include knee arthrodesis, resection arthroplasty and amputation. The relative indications for the selection of these alternatives are recurrent deep infection, immunocompromised host, and extensive non-reconstructible bone or soft-tissue defects.

Revision knee arthroplasty presents a number of challenges, not least of which is obtaining solid primary fixation of implants into host bone. Three anatomical zones exist within both femur and tibia which can be used to support revision implants. These consist of the joint surface or epiphysis, the metaphysis and the diaphysis. The methods by which fixation in each zone can be obtained are discussed. The authors suggest that solid fixation should be obtained in at least two of the three zones and emphasise the importance of pre-operative planning and implant selection.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:147–9.

Aims

Little is known about the relative outcomes of revision of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) and high tibial osteotomy (HTO) to total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The aim of this study is to compare the outcomes of revision surgery for the two procedures in terms of complications, re-revision and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) at a minimum of two years follow-up.

The management of bone loss in revision replacement of the knee remains a challenge despite an array of options available to the surgeon. Bone loss may occur as a result of the original disease, the design of the prosthesis, the mechanism of failure or technical error at initial surgery. The aim of revision surgery is to relieve pain and improve function while addressing the mechanism of failure in order to reconstruct a stable platform with transfer of load to the host bone. Methods of reconstruction include the use of cement, modular metal augmentation of prostheses, custom-made, tumour-type or hinged implants and bone grafting.

The published results of the surgical techniques are summarised and a guide for the management of bone defects in revision surgery of the knee is presented.

Objectives

Orthopaedic surgeons use stems in revision knee surgery to obtain stability when metaphyseal bone is missing. No consensus exists regarding stem size or method of fixation. This in vitro study investigated the influence of stem length and method of fixation on the pattern and level of relative motion at the bone–implant interface at a range of functional flexion angles.

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. Methods. Between January 2000 and March 2019, 21,469 primary and revision arthroplasties (10,011 THAs; 11,458 TKAs), which were undertaken in 15,504 patients at a single academic medical centre, were identified from a 27-county linked electronic medical record (EMR) system. Depressive and anxiety disorders were identified by diagnoses in the EMR or by using a natural language processing program with subsequent validation from review of the medical records. Patients with mental health diagnoses other than anxiety or depression were excluded. Results. Depressive and/or anxiety disorders were common before THA and TKA, with a prevalence of 30% in those who underwent primary THA, 33% in those who underwent revision THA, 32% in those who underwent primary TKA, and 35% in those who underwent revision TKA. The presence of depressive or anxiety disorders was associated with a significantly increased risk of any infection (primary THA, hazard ratio (HR) 1.5; revision THA, HR 1.9; primary TKA, HR 1.6; revision TKA, HR 1.8), revision (THA, HR 1.7; TKA, HR 1.6), re-revision (THA, HR 2.0; TKA, HR 1.6), and reoperation (primary THA, HR 1.6; revision THA, HR 2.2; primary TKA, HR 1.4; revision TKA, HR 1.9; p < 0.03 for all). Patients with preoperative depressive and/or anxiety disorders were significantly less likely to report “much better” joint function after primary THA (78% vs 87%) and primary TKA (86% vs 90%) compared with those without these disorders at two years postoperatively (p < 0.001 for all). Conclusion. The presence of depressive or anxiety disorders prior to primary or revision THA and TKA is common, and associated with a significantly higher risk of infection, revision, reoperation, and dissatisfaction. This topic deserves further study, and surgeons may consider mental health optimization to be of similar importance to preoperative variables such as diabetic control, prior to arthroplasty. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(5):526–533

The December 2024 Knee Roundup. 360. 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

The August 2023 Knee Roundup. 360. 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?

The February 2024 Knee Roundup. 360. 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

Aims. Revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) is a technically challenging and costly procedure. It is well-documented that primary TKA (pTKA) have better survivorship than rTKA; however, we were unable to identify any studies explicitly investigating previous rTKA as a risk factor for failure following rTKA. The purpose of this study is to compare the outcomes following rTKA between patients undergoing index rTKA and those who had been previously revised. Methods. This retrospective, observational study reviewed patients who underwent unilateral, aseptic rTKA at an academic orthopaedic speciality hospital between June 2011 and April 2020 with > one-year of follow-up. Patients were dichotomized based on whether this was their first revision procedure or not. Patient demographics, surgical factors, postoperative outcomes, and re-revision rates were compared between the groups. Results. A total of 663 cases were identified (486 index rTKAs and 177 multiply revised TKAs). There were no differences in demographics, rTKA type, or indication for revision. Multiply revised patients had significantly longer rTKA operative times (p < 0.001), and were more likely to be discharged to an acute rehabilitation centre (6.2% vs 4.5%) or skilled nursing facility (29.9% vs 17.5%; p = 0.003). Patients who had been multiply revised were also significantly more likely to have subsequent reoperation (18.1% vs 9.5%; p = 0.004) and re-revision (27.1% vs 18.1%; p = 0.013). The number of previous revisions did not correlate with the number of subsequent reoperations (r = 0.038; p = 0.670) or re-revisions (r = −0.102; p = 0.251). Conclusion. Multiply revised TKA had worse outcomes, with higher rates of facility discharge, longer operative times, and greater reoperation and re-revision rates compared to index rTKA. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(5):393–398

The December 2023 Knee Roundup. 360. looks at: Obesity is associated with greater improvement in patient-reported outcomes following primary total knee arthroplasty; Does mild flexion of the femoral prosthesis in total knee arthroplasty result in better early postoperative outcomes?; Robotic or manual total knee arthroplasty: a randomized controlled trial; Patient-relevant outcomes following first revision total knee arthroplasty, by diagnosis: an analysis of implant survivorship, mortality, serious medical complications, and patient-reported outcome measures using the National Joint Registry data set; Sagittal alignment in total knee arthroplasty: are there any discrepancies between robotic-assisted and manual axis orientation?; Tourniquet use does not impact recovery trajectory in total knee arthroplasty; Impact of proximal tibial varus anatomy on survivorship after medial unicondylar knee arthroplasty; Bone cement directly to the implant in primary total knee arthroplasty?; Maintaining joint line obliquity optimizes outcomes in patients with constitutionally varus knees

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. Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a devastating complication following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Two-stage revision has traditionally been considered the gold standard of treatment for established infection, but increasing evidence is emerging in support of one-stage exchange for selected patients. The objective of this study was to determine the outcomes of single-stage revision TKA for PJI, with mid-term follow-up. Methods. A total of 84 patients, with a mean age of 68 years (36 to 92), underwent single-stage revision TKA for confirmed PJI at a single institution between 2006 and 2016. In all, 37 patients (44%) were treated for an infected primary TKA, while the majority presented with infected revisions: 31 had undergone one previous revision (36.9%) and 16 had multiple prior revisions (19.1%). Contraindications to single-stage exchange included systemic sepsis, extensive bone or soft-tissue loss, extensor mechanism failure, or if primary wound closure was unlikely to be achievable. Patients were not excluded for culture-negative PJI or the presence of a sinus. Results. Overall, 76 patients (90.5%) were infection-free at a mean follow-up of seven years, with eight reinfections (9.5%). Culture-negative PJI was not associated with a higher reinfection rate (p = 0.343). However, there was a significantly higher rate of recurrence in patients with polymicrobial infections (p = 0.003). The mean Oxford Knee Score (OKS) improved from 18.7 (SD 8.7) preoperatively to 33.8 (SD 9.7) at six months postoperatively (p < 0.001). The Kaplan-Meier implant survival rate for all causes of reoperation, including reinfection and aseptic failure, was 95.2% at one year (95% confidence interval (CI) 87.7 to 98.2), 83.5% at five years (95% CI 73.2 to 90.3), and 78.9% at 12 years (95% CI 66.8 to 87.2). Conclusion. One-stage exchange, using a strict debridement protocol and multidisciplinary input, is an effective treatment option for the infected TKA. This is the largest single-surgeon series of consecutive cases reported to date, with broad inclusion criteria. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(5):305–313

Aims. The purpose of this study was to assess mid-term survivorship following primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) with Optetrak Logic components and identify the most common revision indications at a single institution. Methods. We identified a retrospective cohort of 7,941 Optetrak primary TKAs performed from January 2010 to December 2018. We reviewed the intraoperative findings of 369 TKAs that required revision TKA from January 2010 to December 2021 and the details of the revision implants used. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to determine survivorship. Cox regression analysis was used to examine the impact of patient variables and year of implantation on survival time. Results. The estimated survivorship free of all-cause revision was 98% (95% confidence interval (CI) 97% to 98%), 95% (95% CI 95% to 96%), and 86% (95% CI 83% to 88%) at two, five, and ten years, respectively. In 209/369 revisions there was a consistent constellation of findings with varying severity that included polyethylene wear and associated synovitis, osteolysis, and component loosening. This failure mode, which we refer to as aseptic mechanical failure, was the most common revision indication. The mean time from primary TKA to revision for aseptic mechanical failure was five years (5 months to 11 years). Conclusion. In this series of nearly 8,000 primary TKAs performed with a specific implant, we identified a lower-than-expected mid-term survivorship and a high number of revisions with a unique presentation. This study, along with the recent recall of the implant, confirms the need for frequent monitoring of patients with Optetrak TKAs given the incidence of polyethylene failure, osteolysis, and component loosening. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(3):277–283

Aims. The mean age of patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has reduced with time. Younger patients have increased expectations following TKA. Aseptic loosening of the tibial component is the most common cause of failure of TKA in the UK. Interest in cementless TKA has re-emerged due to its encouraging results in the younger patient population. We review a large series of tantalum trabecular metal cementless implants in patients who are at the highest risk of revision surgery. Methods. A total of 454 consecutive patients who underwent cementless TKA between August 2004 and December 2021 were reviewed. The mean follow-up was ten years. Plain radiographs were analyzed for radiolucent lines. Patients who underwent revision TKA were recorded, and the cause for revision was determined. Data from the National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Island, the Isle of Man and the States of Guernsey (NJR) were compared with our series. Results. No patients in our series had evidence of radiolucent lines on their latest radiological assessment. Only eight patients out of 454 required revision arthroplasty, and none of these revisions were indicated for aseptic loosening of the tibial baseplate. When compared to data from the NJR annual report, Kaplan-Meier estimates from our series (2.94 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.24 to 5.87)) show a significant reduction in cumulative estimates of revision compared to all cemented (4.82 (95% CI 4.69 to 4.96)) or cementless TKA (5.65 (95% CI 5.23 to 6.10)). Our data (2.94 (95% CI 1.24 to 5.87)) also show lower cumulative revision rates compared to the most popular implant (PFC Sigma Cemented Knee implant fixation, 4.03 (95% CI 3.75 to 4.33)). The prosthesis time revision rate (PTIR) estimates for our series (2.07 (95% CI 0.95 to 3.83)) were lower than those of cemented cases (4.53 (95% CI 4.49 to 4.57)) from NJR. Conclusion. The NexGen trabecular (tantalum) cementless implant has lower revision rates in our series compared to all cemented implants and other types of cementless implants, and its use in younger patients should be encouraged. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(4):277–285

Aims. Revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) and revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) are complex procedures with higher rates of re-revision, complications, and mortality compared to primary TKA and THA. We report the effects of the establishment of a revision arthroplasty network (the East Midlands Specialist Orthopaedic Network; EMSON) on outcomes of rTKA and rTHA. Methods. The revision arthroplasty network was established in January 2015 and covered five hospitals in the Nottinghamshire and Lincolnshire areas of the East Midlands of England. This comprises a collaborative weekly multidisciplinary meeting where upcoming rTKA and rTHA procedures are discussed, and a plan agreed. Using the Hospital Episode Statistics database, revision procedures carried out between April 2011 and March 2018 (allowing two-year follow-up) from the five network hospitals were compared to all other hospitals in England. Age, sex, and mean Hospital Frailty Risk scores were used as covariates. The primary outcome was re-revision surgery within one year of the index revision. Secondary outcomes were re-revision surgery within two years, any complication within one and two years, and median length of hospital stay. Results. A total of 57,621 rTHA and 33,828 rTKA procedures were performed across England, of which 1,485 (2.6%) and 1,028 (3.0%), respectively, were conducted within the network. Re-revision rates within one year for rTHA were 7.3% and 6.0%, and for rTKA were 11.6% and 7.4% pre- and postintervention, respectively, within the network. This compares to a pre-to-post change from 7.4% to 6.8% for rTHA and from 11.7% to 9.7% for rTKA for the rest of England. In comparative interrupted time-series analysis for rTKA there was a significant immediate improvement in one-year re-revision rates for the revision network compared to the rest of England (p = 0.024), but no significant change for rTHA (p = 0.504). For the secondary outcomes studied, there was a significant improvement in trend for one- and two-year complication rates for rTHA for the revision network compared to the rest of England. Conclusion. Re-revision rates for rTKA and complication rates for rTHA improved significantly at one and two years with the introduction of a revision arthroplasty network, when compared to the rest of England. Most of the outcomes studied improved to a greater extent in the network hospitals compared to the rest of England when comparing the pre- and postintervention periods. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(6):641–648