Explore the vast range of titles available.

Total knee replacement (TKR) or unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) are options for end-stage osteoarthritis. However, comparisons between the two procedures are confounded by differences in baseline characteristics of patients undergoing either procedure and by insufficient reporting of endpoints other than revision. We aimed to compare adverse outcomes for each procedure in matched patients. With propensity score techniques, we compared matched patients undergoing TKR and UKR in the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. The National Joint Registry started collecting data in April 1, 2003, and is continuing. The last operation date in the extract of data used in our study was Aug 28, 2012. We linked data for multiple potential confounders from the National Health Service Hospital Episode Statistics database. We used regression models to compare outcomes including rates of revision, revision/reoperation, complications, readmission, mortality, and length of stay. 25 334 UKRs were matched to 75 996 TKRs on the basis of propensity score. UKRs had worse implant survival both for revision (subhazard ratio [SHR] 2·12, 95% CI 1·99–2·26) and for revision/reoperation (1·38, 1·31–1·44) than TKRs at 8 years. Mortality was significantly higher for TKR at all timepoints than for UKR (30 day: hazard ratio 0·23, 95% CI 0·11–0·50; 8 year: 0·85, 0·79–0·92). Length of stay, complications (including thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, and stroke), and rate of readmission were all higher for TKR than for UKR. In decisions about which procedure to offer, the higher revision/reoperation rate of UKR than of TKR should be balanced against a lower occurrence of complications, readmission, and mortality, together with known benefits for UKR in terms of postoperative function. If 100 patients receiving TKR received UKR instead, the result would be around one fewer death and three more reoperations in the first 4 years after surgery. Royal College of Surgeons of England and Arthritis Research UK.

Osteoarthritis (OA) is a disease of the whole joint organ, characterized by the loss of cartilage, and structural changes in bone including the formation of osteophytes, causing disability and loss of function. It is also associated with systemic mediators and low-grade inflammation. Currently, there is negligible/no availability of specific biomarkers that can be used to facilitate the diagnosis and treatment of OA. The most unmet clinical need is, however, related to the monitoring of disease progression over a short period that can be used in clinical trials. In this review, the value of biomarkers identified over the past decade has been highlighted. These biomarkers are associated with the synthesis and breakdown of cartilage, including collagenous and noncollagenous biomarkers, inflammatory and anti-inflammatory biomarkers, expressed in the biological fluid such as serum, synovial fluid, and urine. Broad validation of novel and clinically applicable biomarkers and their involvement in the pathways are particularly needed for early-stage diagnosis, monitoring disease progression, and severity and examining new drugs to mitigate the effects of this highly prevalent and debilitating condition.

Purpose The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare clinical and patient-reported outcome measures of medially stabilised (MS) TKA when compared to other TKA designs. Methods The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses algorithm was used. The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and EMCARE databases were searched to June 2020. Studies with a minimum of 12 months of follow-up comparing an MS TKA design to any other TKA design were included. The statistical analysis was completed using Review Manager (RevMan), Version 5.3. Results The 22 studies meeting the inclusion criteria included 3011 patients and 4102 TKAs. Overall Oxford Knee Scores were significantly better ( p  = 0.0007) for MS TKA, but there was no difference in the Forgotten Joint Scores (FJS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Knee Society Score (KSS)-Knee, KSS-Function, and range of motion between MS and non-MS TKA designs. Significant differences were noted for sub-group analyses; MS TKA showed significantly worse KSS-Knee ( p  = 0.02) and WOMAC ( p  = 0.03) scores when compared to Rotating Platform (RP) TKA while significantly better FJS ( p  = 0.002) and KSS-knee scores ( p  = 0.0001) when compared to cruciate-retaining (CR) TKA. Conclusion This review and meta-analysis show that MS TKA designs result in both patient and clinical outcomes that are comparable to non-MS implants. These results suggest implant design alone may not provide further improvement in patient outcome following TKA, surgeons must consider other factors, such as alignment to achieve superior outcomes. Level of evidence III.

Purpose For patients with medial compartment arthritis who have failed non-operative treatment, either a total knee arthroplasty (TKA) or a unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) can be undertaken. This analysis considers how the choice between UKA and TKA affects long-term patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Methods The Knee Arthroplasty Trial (KAT) and a cohort of patients who received a minimally invasive UKA provided data. Propensity score matching was used to identify comparable patients. Oxford Knee Score (OKS), its pain and function components, and the EuroQol 5 Domain (EQ-5D) index, estimated on the basis of OKS responses, were then compared over 10 years following surgery. Mixed-effects regressions for repeated measures were used to estimate the effect of patient characteristics and type of surgery on PROMs. Results Five-hundred and ninety UKAs were matched to the same number of TKAs. Receiving UKA rather than TKA was found to be associated with better scores for OKS, including both its pain and function components, and EQ-5D, with the differences expected to grow over time. UKA was also associated with an increased likelihood of patients achieving a successful outcome, with an increased chance of attaining minimally clinically important improvements in both OKS and EQ-5D, and an ‘excellent’ OKS. In addition, for both procedures, patients aged between 60 and 70 and better pre-operative scores were associated with better post-operative outcomes. Conclusion Minimally invasive UKAs performed on patients with the appropriate indications led to better patient-reported pain and function scores than TKAs performed on comparable patients. UKA can lead to better long-term quality of life than TKA and this should be considered alongside risk of revision when choosing between the procedures. Level of evidence II.

Background Adverse reactions to metal debris (ARMD) have resulted in the high short-term failure rates observed with metal-on-metal hip replacements. ARMD has recently been reported in non-metal-on-metal total hip replacements (non-MoM THRs) in a number of small cohort studies. However the true magnitude of this complication in non-MoM THRs remains unknown. We used a nationwide database to determine the risk of ARMD revision in all non-MoM THRs, and compared patient and surgical factors associated with ARMD revision between non-MoM and MoM hips. Methods We performed a retrospective observational study using data from the National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man. All primary hip replacements undergoing revision surgery for ARMD were included ( n  = 3,340). ARMD revision risk in non-MoM THRs was compared between different commonly implanted bearing surfaces and femoral head sizes (Chi-squared test). Differences in patient and surgical factors between non-MoM hips and MoM hips revised for ARMD were also analysed (Chi-squared test and unpaired t -test). Results Of all ARMD revisions, 7.5% ( n  = 249) had non-MoM bearing surfaces. The relative risk of ARMD revision was 2.35 times (95% CI 1.76–3.11) higher in ceramic-on-ceramic bearings compared with hard-on-soft bearings (0.055 vs. 0.024%; p  < 0.001), and 2.80 times (95% CI 1.74–4.36) higher in 36 mm metal-on-polyethylene bearings compared to 28 mm and 32 mm metal-on-polyethylene bearings (0.058 vs. 0.021%; p  < 0.001). ARMD revisions were performed earlier in non-MoM hips compared to MoM hips (mean 3.6-years vs. 5.6-years; p  < 0.0001). Non-MoM hips had more abnormal findings at revision (63.1 vs. 35.7%; p  < 0.001), and more intra-operative adverse events (6.4 vs. 1.6%; p  < 0.001) compared to MoM hips. Conclusions Although the overall risk of ARMD revision surgery in non-MoM THRs appears low, this risk is increasing, and is significantly higher in ceramic-on-ceramic THRs and 36 mm metal-on-polyethylene THRs. ARMD may therefore represent a significant clinical problem in non-MoM THRs.

Purpose Medial pivot (MP) total knee arthroplasty (TKA) aims to restore native knee kinematics due to highly conforming medial tibio-femoral articulation with survival comparable to contemporary knee designs. Posterior stabilized (PS) TKAs use cam-post mechanism to restore native femoral rollback. However, there is conflicting evidence regarding the reported patient satisfaction with MP TKA designs when compared to PS TKAs. The primary aim of this study is to compare the patient satisfaction between MP and PS TKA and the secondary aim is to establish potential reasons behind any differences in the outcomes noted between these two design philosophies. Methods In this IRB-approved single surgeon, single centre prospective RCT, 53 patients (mean age 62 years, 42 women) with comparable bilateral end-stage knee arthritis undergoing simultaneous bilateral TKA were randomized to receive MP TKA in one knee and PS TKA in the contralateral knee. At 4 years post-surgery, all patients were assessed using Knee Society Score (KSS)-Satisfaction and -Expectation scores, and Oxford Knee Score (OKS). In addition, all the patients underwent standardized radiological and in vivo kinematic assessment. Results Patients were more satisfied with the MP TKA as compared to PS TKA: mean KSS-Satisfaction [34.5 ± 3.05 in MP and 31.7 ± 3.16 in PS TKAs ( p  < 0.0001)] and mean KSS-Expectation scores [12.5 ± 1.39 in MP TKAs and 11.2 ± 1.41 in PS TKAs ( p  < 0.0001)]. No significant difference was noted in any other clinical outcomes. The in vivo kinematics of MP TKAs was significantly better than those of PS TKAs. Conclusion MP TKAs provide superior patient satisfaction and patient expectations as compared to PS TKA. This may be related to better replication of natural knee kinematics with MP TKA. Level of evidence I.

Implant revision is an operation with exchange of implants, and is used as a standard outcome after total hip replacement (THR), but may not fully represent the patient experience after a THR. Major reoperation (hereafter referred to as 'reoperation') without revision of implants can also lead to increased patient morbidity and mortality, and most commonly occurs when the femur fractures around an implant (postoperative periprosthetic femoral fractures; POPFF) and is treated with fixation and the implant is left in place. Reliance on revision metrics that do not capture these reoperations has led to large-scale underreporting of reoperations in THR, and is likely to have affected implant performance estimates, which have guided national policy and implant selection. It is important to include these additional reoperations when estimating treatment success to guide innovation and clinical practice. We aimed to estimate the incidence of reoperation following primary THR. We performed a large national cohort study on a mandatory, prospective database, the National Joint Registry, linked to Hospital Episode Statistics. All linkable primary THRs using recently available implants, with highest safety ratings between 01/01/2010 and 31/12/2020, were included. Major reoperation was defined as the first revision for any cause or fixation of POPFF and was identified using a combination of procedural and diagnosis codes. We identified 372,967 THRs representing 2,127,464 prostheses years at risk with a median follow-up time of 5.39 years (range 0 to 12.1 years). A total of 8,043 reoperations were identified that had been surgically treated by revision for any cause or fixation of POPFF. The incidence of reoperation was 3.78% (95% confidence interval [CI 3.70%, 3.86%]) per 1,000 prostheses years in comparison to 3.00% (95% CI [2.93%, 3.07%]) per 1,000 prostheses years when using conventional revision only outcomes. Cumulative incidence of major reoperation at 10 years was 3.1% (95% CI [3.0%, 3.1%]). Cumulative reoperation estimates were stratified by age and sex. In men aged 68 years and older, collared cementless stems performed better than cemented stems and in women aged 75 years and older, the relationship was reversed. Residual differences in patient characteristics may affect the accuracy of the estimates. Treatment failure after THR has been underrepresented by revision-only estimates. Major reoperation rates in older men were lowest with cementless collared stems, and in older women, reoperation rates were lowest with cemented polished taper stems made of stainless steel. These results prompt a review of the current implant guidance for hip replacements in older patients. III (Retrospective cohort study).

Background High short-term failure rates have been reported for several metal-on-metal hip resurfacing (MoMHR) designs. Early observations suggested that MoMHRs revised to total hip arthroplasties (THAs) for pseudotumor had more major complications and inferior patient-reported outcomes compared with other revision indications. However, little is known about implant survivorship and patient-reported outcomes at more than 5 years after MoMHR revision. Questions/purposes (1) What are the implant survivorship, proportion of complications and abnormal radiological findings, and patient-reported outcomes at a median of 10 years after MoMHR revision surgery? (2) Are survivorship, complications, and patient-reported outcomes influenced by revision indication? (3) Do any other factors predict survivorship, complications, and patient-reported outcomes? Methods Between 1999 and 2008, 53 MoMHR revision procedures in 51 patients (mean age, 55 years; 62% female) were performed at one center and were all included in this retrospective study. Two patients (4%) were lost to followup and two patients (4%) died before a minimum followup of 7 years (median, 10.3 years; range 7–15 years). Revision indications included pseudotumor (n = 16), femoral neck fracture (n = 21), and other causes (n = 16). In most cases (62%, n = 33) both components were revised to a non-MoM bearing THA with the remainder (38%, n = 20: fracture, loosening, or head collapse) undergoing femoral-only revision to a large-diameter MoM THA. Postrevision complications, rerevision, Oxford Hip Score (OHS), and UCLA score were determined using both a longitudinally maintained institutional database and postal questionnaire. Implant survivorship was assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method (endpoint was rerevision surgery). Radiographs at latest followup were systematically assessed for any signs of failure (loosening, migration, osteolysis) by one observer blinded to all clinical information and not involved in the revision procedures. Results Overall, 45% (24 of 53) experienced complications and 38% (20 of 53) underwent rerevision. Ten-year survival free from rerevision for revised MoMHRs was 63% (95% confidence interval [CI], 48%–74%). Revision indications were not associated with differences in the frequency of complications or repeat revisions. With the numbers available, 10-year survival free from rerevision for pseudotumor revisions (56%; 95% CI, 30%–76%) was not different from the fracture (68%; 95% CI, 42%–85%; p = 0.359) and other groups (63%; 95% CI, 35%–81%; p = 0.478). Pseudotumor revisions had inferior OHSs (median, 21; range, 2–46; p = 0.007) and UCLA scores (median, 2; range, 2–7; p = 0.0184) compared with fracture and other revisions. Ten-year survival free from rerevision after femoral-only revision using another large-diameter MoM bearing was lower (p = 0.0498) compared with all component revisions using non-MoM bearings. After controlling for potential confounding variables such as age, sex, and revision indication, we found femoral-only revision as the only factor predicting rerevision (hazard ratio, 5.7; 95% CI, 1.1–29; p = 0.040). Conclusions Poor implant survivorship and frequent complications were observed at a median of 10 years after MoMHR revision. However, patients undergoing femoral-only revisions with large-diameter MoM bearings had the worst survivorship, whereas patients revised for pseudotumor had the most inferior patient-reported outcomes. Our findings suggest these two patient subgroups require regular surveillance after MoMHR revision. Level of Evidence Level III, therapeutic study.

Background The best approach for surgical treatment of an infected THA remains controversial. Two-stage revision is believed to result in lower reinfection rates but may result in significant functional impairment. Some authors now suggest that single-stage revision may provide comparable results in terms of infection eradication while providing superior functional outcomes. Questions/purposes We performed a systematic review to determine whether single- or two-stage revision for an infected THA provides lower reinfection rates and higher functional outcome scores. Methods We conducted a comprehensive search of PubMed and Embase, using the search string [Infection AND (“total hip replacement” OR “total hip arthroplasty”) AND revision]. All studies comparing reinfection rates or functional scores for single- and two-stage revision were retrieved and reviewed. A systematic review was performed according to the PRISMA checklist. Results The initial search retrieved 1128 studies. Following strict exclusion criteria, we identified nine comparative studies comparing reinfection rates (all nine studies) or functional scores (four studies) between single- and two-stage revisions. The overall quality of studies was poor with no randomized studies being identified. Groups often varied in their baseline characteristics. There was no consensus among the studies regarding the relative incidence of reinfection between the two procedures. There was a trend toward better functional outcomes in single-stage surgery, but this reached significance in only one study. Conclusions In appropriate patients, single-stage revision appears to be associated with similar reinfection rates when compared with two-stage revision with superior functional outcomes. This concurs with earlier studies, but given the methodologic quality of the included studies, these findings should be treated with caution. High-quality randomized studies are needed to compare the two approaches to confirm these findings, and, if appropriate, to determine which patients are appropriate for single-stage revision.

ObjectivesTo assess the value for money of unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) compared with total knee replacement (TKR).DesignA lifetime Markov model provided the framework for the analysis.SettingData from the National Joint Registry (NJR) for England and Wales primarily informed the analysis.ParticipantsPropensity score matched patients in the NJR who received either a UKR or TKR.InterventionsUKR is a less invasive alternative to TKR, where only the compartment affected by osteoarthritis is replaced.Primary outcome measuresIncremental quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and healthcare system costs.ResultsThe provision of UKR is expected to lead to a gain in QALYs compared with TKR for all age and gender subgroups (male: <60 years: 0.12, 60–75 years: 0.20, 75+ years: 0.19; female: <60 years: 0.10, 60–75 years: 0.28, 75+ years: 0.44) and a reduction in costs (male: <60: £−1223, 60–75 years: £−1355, 75+ years: £−2005; female: <60 years: £−601, 60–75 years: £−935, 75+ years: £−1102 per patient over the lifetime). UKR is expected to lead to a reduction in QALYs compared with TKR when performed by surgeons with low UKR utilisation but an increase among those with high utilisation (<10%, median 6%: −0.04, ≥10%, median 27%: 0.26). Regardless of surgeon usage, costs associated with UKR are expected to be lower than those of TKR (<10%: £−127, ≥10%: £−758).ConclusionsUKR can be expected to generate better health outcomes and lower lifetime costs than TKR. Surgeon usage of UKR does, however, have a significant impact on the cost-effectiveness of the procedure. To achieve the best results, surgeons need to perform a sufficient proportion of knee replacements as UKR. Low usage surgeons may therefore need to broaden their indications for UKR.