Prolonged waits for hip and knee arthroplasty have raised questions about the equity of current approaches to waiting list prioritization for those awaiting surgery. We therefore set out to understand key stakeholder (patient and surgeon) preferences for the prioritization of patients awaiting such surgery, in order to guide future waiting list redesign. A combined qualitative/quantitative approach was used. This comprised a Delphi study to first inform which factors patients and surgeons designate as important for prioritization of patients on hip and knee arthroplasty waiting lists, followed by a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to determine how the factors should be weighed against each other. Coefficient values for each included DCE attribute were used to construct a ‘priority score’ (weighted benefit score) that could be used to rank individual patients waiting for surgery based on their respective characteristics.Aims
Methods
Total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) are common orthopaedic procedures requiring postoperative radiographs to confirm implant positioning and identify complications. Artificial intelligence (AI)-based image analysis has the potential to automate this postoperative surveillance. The aim of this study was to prepare a scoping review to investigate how AI is being used in the analysis of radiographs following THA and TKA, and how accurate these tools are. The Embase, MEDLINE, and PubMed libraries were systematically searched to identify relevant articles. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews and Arksey and O’Malley framework were followed. Study quality was assessed using a modified Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies tool. AI performance was reported using either the area under the curve (AUC) or accuracy.Aims
Methods
The lateral subvastus approach combined with an osteotomy of the tibial tubercle is a recognised, but rarely used approach for total knee replacement (TKR). A total of 32 patients undergoing primary TKR was randomised into two groups, in one of which the lateral subvastus approach combined with a tibial tubercle osteotomy and in the other the medial parapatellar approach were used. The patients were assessed radiologically and clinically using measurement of the range of movement, a visual analogue patient satisfaction score, the Western Ontario McMasters University Osteoarthritis Index and the American Knee Society score. Four patients were lost to the complete follow-up at two years. At two years there were no significant differences between the groups in any of the parameters for clinical outcome. In the lateral approach group there was one complication due to displacement of the tibial tubercle osteotomy and two osteotomies took more than six months to unite. In the medial approach group, one patient had a partial tear of the quadriceps. There was a significantly greater incidence of lateral patellar subluxation in the medial approach group (3 of 12) compared with the lateral approach group (0 of 16) (p = 0.034), but without any apparent clinical detriment. We conclude that the lateral approach with tibial tubercle osteotomy is a safe technique with an outcome comparable with that of the medial parapatellar approach for TKR, but the increased surgical time and its specific complications do not support its routine use. It would seem to be more appropriate to reserve this technique for patients in whom problems with patellar tracking are anticipated.
