Aims. Routine surveillance of primary hip and knee arthroplasties has traditionally been performed with office follow-up visits at one year postoperatively. The value of these visits is unclear. The present study aims to determine the utility and burden of routine clinical follow-up at one year after primary arthroplasty to patients and providers. Methods. All patients (473) who underwent primary total hip (280), hip resurfacing (eight), total knee (179), and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (six) over a nine-month period at a single institution were identified from an institutional registry. Patients were prompted to attend their routine one-year postoperative visit by a single telephone reminder. Patients and surgeons were given questionnaires at the one-year postoperative visit, defined as a clinical encounter occurring at nine to 15 months from the date of surgery, regarding value of the visit. Results. Compliance with routine follow-up at one year was 35%. The response rate was over 80% for all questions in the patient and clinician surveys. Overall, 75% of the visits were for routine surveillance. Patients reported high satisfaction with their visits despite the general time for attendance, including travel, being over four hours. Surgeons found the visits more worthwhile when issues were identified or problems were addressed. Conclusion. Patient compliance with follow-up at one year postoperatively after primary hip and knee is low. Routine visits of asymptomatic patients deliver little practical value and represent a large time and cost burden for patients and surgeons. Remote strategies should be considered for routine postoperative surveillance primary hip and knee arthroplasties beyond the acute postoperative period. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(7 Supple B):85–89

Aims. The primary aim of the study was to compare the knee-specific functional outcome of robotic unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (rUKA) with manual total knee arthroplasty (mTKA) for the management of isolated medial compartment osteoarthritis. Secondary aims were to compare length of hospital stay, general health improvement, and satisfaction between rUKA and mTKA. Methods. A powered (1:3 ratio) cohort study was performed. A total of 30 patients undergoing rUKA were propensity score matched to 90 patients undergoing mTKA for isolated medial compartment arthritis. Patients were matched for age, sex, body mass index (BMI), and preoperative function. The Oxford Knee Score (OKS) and EuroQol five-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D) were collected preoperatively and six months postoperatively. The Forgotten Joint Score (FJS) and patient satisfaction were collected six months postoperatively. Length of hospital stay was also recorded. Results. There were no significant differences in the preoperative demographics (p ⩾ 0.150) or function (p ⩾ 0.230) between the groups. The six-month OKS was significantly greater in the rUKA group when compared with the mTKA group (difference 7.7, p < 0.001). There was also a greater six-month postoperative EQ-5D (difference 0.148, p = 0.002) and FJS (difference 24.2, p < 0.001) for the rUKA when compared to the mTKA. No patient was dissatisfied in the rUKA group and five (6%) were dissatisfied in the mTKA, but this was not significant (p = 0.210). Length of stay was significantly (p < 0.001) shorter in the rUKA group (median two days, interquartile range (IQR) 1 to 3) compared to the mTKA (median four days, IQR 3 to 5). Conclusion. Patients with isolated medial compartment arthritis had a greater knee-specific functional outcome and generic health with a shorter length of hospital stay after rUKA when compared to mTKA. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2019;9(1):15–22

The June 2015 Knee Roundup360 looks at: Cruciate substituting versus retaining knee replacement; What’s behind the psychology of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction?; Is there a difference in total knee arthroplasty risk of revision in highly crosslinked versus conventional polyethylene?; Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: is age the missing variable?; Satisfaction rates following total knee arthroplasty; Is knee alignment dynamic?; Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: cemented or cementless?; Can revision knee services pay?

There have been several reports of good survivorship and excellent function at ten years with fixed-bearing unicompartmental knee replacement. However, little is known about survival beyond ten years. From the Bristol database of over 4000 knee replacements, we identified 203 St Georg Sled unicompartmental knee replacements (174 patients) which had already survived ten years. The mean age of the patients at surgery was 67.1 years (35.7 to 85) with 67 (38.5%) being under 65 years at the time of surgery. They were reviewed at a mean of 14.8 years (10 to 29.4) from surgery to determine survivorship and function. There were 99 knees followed up for 15 years, 21 for 20 years and four for 25 years. The remainder failed, were withdrawn, or the patient had died. In 58 patients (69 knees) the implant was in situ at the time of death. Revision was undertaken in 16 knees (7.9%) at a mean of 13 years (10.2 to 21.6) after operation. In seven knees (3.4%) this was for progression of arthritis, in three (1.5%) for wear of polyethylene, in four (2%) for tibial loosening, in two (1%) for fracture of the femoral component and in two (1%) for infection. Two knees (1%) were revised for more than one reason. The mean Bristol knee score of the surviving knees fell from 86 (34 to 100) to 79 (42 to 100) during the second decade. Survivorship to 20 years was 85.9% (95% CI 82.9% to 88.9%) and at 25 years was 80% (95% CI 70.2% to 89.8%). Satisfactory survival of a fixed-bearing unicompartmental knee replacement can be achieved into the second decade and beyond

We reviewed the rate of revision of unicompartmental knee replacements (UKR) from the New Zealand Joint Registry between 1999 and 2008. There were 4284 UKRs, of which 236 required revision, 205 to a total knee replacement (U2T) and 31 to a further unicompartmental knee replacement (U2U). We used these data to establish whether the survival and functional outcome for revised UKRs were comparable with those of primary total knee replacement (TKR). The rate of revision for the U2T cohort was four times higher than that for a primary TKR (1.97 vs 0.48; p < 0.05). The mean Oxford Knee Score was also significantly worse in the U2T group than that of the primary TKR group (30.02 vs 37.16; p < 0.01). The rate of revision for conversion of a failed UKR to a further UKR (U2U cohort) was 13 times higher than that for a primary TKR. The poor outcome of a UKR converted to a primary TKR compared with a primary TKR should contra-indicate the use of a UKR as a more conservative procedure in the younger patient

We retrospectively reviewed 35 cemented unicompartmental knee replacements performed for medial unicompartmental osteoarthritis of the knee in 31 patients ≤50 years old (mean 46, 31 to 49). Patients were assessed clinically and radiologically using the Knee Society scores at a mean follow-up of 9.7 years (5 to 16) and survival at 12 years was calculated. The mean Knee Society Function Score improved from 54 points (25 to 64) pre-operatively to 89 (80 to 100) post-operatively (p < 0.0001). Six knees required revision, four for polyethylene wear treated with an isolated exchange of the tibial insert, one for aseptic loosening and one for progression of osteoarthritis. The 12-year survival according to Kaplan-Meier was 80.6% with revision for any reason as the endpoint. Despite encouraging clinical results, polyethylene wear remains a major concern affecting the survival of unicompartmental knee replacement in patients younger than 50

Aims

Robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (R-UKA) has been proposed as an approach to improve the results of the conventional manual UKA (C-UKA). The aim of this meta-analysis was to analyze the studies comparing R-UKA and C-UKA in terms of clinical outcomes, radiological results, operating time, complications, and revisions.

Aims

The primary aim of this prospective, multicentre study is to describe the rates of returning to golf following hip, knee, ankle, and shoulder arthroplasty in an active golfing population. Secondary aims will include determining the timing of return to golf, changes in ability, handicap, and mobility, and assessing joint-specific and health-related outcomes following surgery.

Aims

The metabolic equivalent of task (MET) score examines patient performance in relation to energy expenditure before and after knee arthroplasty. This study assesses its use in a knee arthroplasty population in comparison with the widely used Oxford Knee Score (OKS) and EuroQol five-dimension index (EQ-5D), which are reported to be limited by ceiling effects.

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.

Aims

Periprosthetic fractures (PPFs) around the knee are challenging injuries. This study aims to describe the characteristics of knee PPFs and the impact of patient demographics, fracture types, and management modalities on in-hospital mortality.

The December 2014 Knee Roundup. 360 . looks at: national guidance on arthroplasty thromboprophylaxis is effective; unicompartmental knee replacement has the edge in terms of short-term complications; stiff knees, timing and manipulation; neuropathic pain and total knee replacement; synovial fluid α-defensin and CRP: a new gold standard in joint infection diagnosis?; how to assess anterior knee pain?; where is the evidence? Five new implants under the spotlight; and a fresh look at ACL reconstruction

Literature surrounding artificial intelligence (AI)-related applications for hip and knee arthroplasty has proliferated. However, meaningful advances that fundamentally transform the practice and delivery of joint arthroplasty are yet to be realized, despite the broad range of applications as we continue to search for meaningful and appropriate use of AI. AI literature in hip and knee arthroplasty between 2018 and 2021 regarding image-based analyses, value-based care, remote patient monitoring, and augmented reality was reviewed. Concerns surrounding meaningful use and appropriate methodological approaches of AI in joint arthroplasty research are summarized. Of the 233 AI-related orthopaedics articles published, 178 (76%) constituted original research, while the rest consisted of editorials or reviews. A total of 52% of original AI-related research concerns hip and knee arthroplasty (n = 92), and a narrative review is described. Three studies were externally validated. Pitfalls surrounding present-day research include conflating vernacular (“AI/machine learning”), repackaging limited registry data, prematurely releasing internally validated prediction models, appraising model architecture instead of inputted data, withholding code, and evaluating studies using antiquated regression-based guidelines. While AI has been applied to a variety of hip and knee arthroplasty applications with limited clinical impact, the future remains promising if the question is meaningful, the methodology is rigorous and transparent, the data are rich, and the model is externally validated. Simple checkpoints for meaningful AI adoption include ensuring applications focus on: administrative support over clinical evaluation and management; necessity of the advanced model; and the novelty of the question being answered.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(12):1292–1303.

The December 2024 Research Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Skeletal muscle composition, power, and mitochondrial energetics in older men and women with knee osteoarthritis; Machine-learning models to predict osteonecrosis in patients with femoral neck fractures undergoing internal fixation; Aetiology of patient dissatisfaction following primary total knee arthroplasty in the era of robotic-assisted technology; Efficacy and safety of commonly used thromboprophylaxis agents following hip and knee arthroplasty; The COVID-19 effect continues; Nickel allergy in knee arthroplasty: does self-reported sensitivity affect outcomes?; Tranexamic acid use and joint infection risk in total hip and knee arthroplasty.

Total hip and knee arthroplasty (THA, TKA) are largely successful procedures; however, both have variable outcomes, resulting in some patients being dissatisfied with the outcome. Surgeons are turning to technologies such as robotic-assisted surgery in an attempt to improve outcomes. Robust studies are needed to find out if these innovations are really benefitting patients. The Robotic Arthroplasty Clinical and Cost Effectiveness Randomised Controlled Trials (RACER) trials are multicentre, patient-blinded randomized controlled trials. The patients have primary osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. The operation is Mako-assisted THA or TKA and the control groups have operations using conventional instruments. The primary clinical outcome is the Forgotten Joint Score at 12 months, and there is a built-in analysis of cost-effectiveness. Secondary outcomes include early pain, the alignment of the components, and medium- to long-term outcomes. This annotation outlines the need to assess these technologies and discusses the design and challenges when conducting such trials, including surgical workflows, isolating the effect of the operation, blinding, and assessing the learning curve. Finally, the future of robotic surgery is discussed, including the need to contemporaneously introduce and evaluate such technologies.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(2):114–120.

Abstract

Robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has proven higher accuracy, fewer alignment outliers, and improved short-term clinical outcomes when compared to conventional TKA. However, evidence of cost-effectiveness and individual superiority of one system over another is the subject of further research. Despite its growing adoption rate, published results are still limited and comparative studies are scarce. This review compares characteristics and performance of five currently available systems, focusing on the information and feedback each system provides to the surgeon, what the systems allow the surgeon to modify during the operation, and how each system then aids execution of the surgical plan.

Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(1):13–18.

Aims

Day-case success rates after primary total hip arthroplasty (THA), total knee arthroplasty (TKA), and medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (mUKA) may vary, and detailed data are needed on causes of not being discharged. The aim of this study was to analyze the association between surgical procedure type and successful day-case surgery, and to analyze causes of not being discharged on the day of surgery when eligible and scheduled for day-case THA, TKA, and mUKA.

Aims

This study aimed to investigate patients’ attitudes towards day-case hip and knee arthroplasty and to describe patient characteristics associated with different attitudes, with the purpose of providing an insight into the information requirements for patients that surgeons should address when informing patients about day-case surgery.

The June 2024 Knee Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: The estimated lifetime risk of revision after primary knee arthroplasty influenced by age, sex, and indication; Should high-risk patients seek out care from high-volume surgeons?; Stability and fracture rates in medial unicondylar knee arthroplasties; Rethinking antibiotic prophylaxis for dental procedures post-arthroplasty; Evaluating DAIR: a viable alternative for acute periprosthetic joint infection; The characteristics and predictors of mortality in periprosthetic fractures around the knee; Patient health-related quality of life deteriorates significantly while waiting six to 12 months for total hip or knee arthroplasty; The importance of looking for diversity in knee implants.