Catalogue Search | MBRL
Search Results Heading
Explore the vast range of titles available.
MBRLSearchResults
-
DisciplineDiscipline
-
Is Peer ReviewedIs Peer Reviewed
-
Item TypeItem Type
-
SubjectSubject
-
YearFrom:-To:
-
More FiltersMore FiltersSourceLanguage
Done
Filters
Reset
13,580
result(s) for
"Knee replacement arthroplasty"
Sort by:
Two-Year Evaluation of Mandatory Bundled Payments for Joint Replacement
by
Mehrotra, Ateev
,
McWilliams, J. Michael
,
Epstein, Arnold M
in
Aging
,
Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip - adverse effects
,
Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip - economics
2019
In 2016, Medicare started mandatory bundled payment for joint-replacement surgery in randomly selected areas. Hospitals receive bonuses or pay penalties based on spending through 90 days after discharge. In the first 2 years, there was a slight reduction in spending.
Journal Article
A prospective double-blinded randomised control trial comparing robotic arm-assisted functionally aligned total knee arthroplasty versus robotic arm-assisted mechanically aligned total knee arthroplasty
2020
Background
Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) with mechanical alignment (MA) aims to achieve neutral limb alignment in all patients, whereas TKA with functional alignment (FA) aims to restore native, patient-specific anatomy and knee kinematics by manipulating bone resections and fine-tuning implant positioning. The objective of this study is to determine the optimal alignment technique in TKA by comparing patient satisfaction, functional outcomes, implant survivorship, complications, and cost-effectiveness in MA TKA versus FA TKA. Robotic technology will be used to execute the planned implant positioning and limb alignment with high-levels of accuracy in all study patients.
Methods and analysis
This prospective double-blinded randomised control trial will include 100 patients with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis undergoing primary robotic arm-assisted TKA. Following informed consent, patients will be randomised to MA TKA (the control group) or FA TKA (the investigation group) at a ratio of 1:1 using an online random number generator. Blinded observers will review patients at regular intervals for 2 years after surgery to record predefined study outcomes relating to postoperative rehabilitation, clinical progress, functional outcomes, accuracy of implant positioning and limb alignment, gait, implant stability, cost-effectiveness, and complications. A superiority study design will be used to evaluate whether FA TKA provides superior outcomes compared to MA TKA. Primary and secondary objectives will be used to quantify and draw inferences on differences in the efficacy of treatment between the two groups. Intention-to-treat and per-protocol population analysis will be undertaken. The following statistical methods will be employed to analyse the data: descriptive statistics, independent
t
test, paired
t
test, analysis of variance, Fisher exact test, chi-square test, and graphical displays. Ethical approval was obtained from the London-Surrey Research Ethics Committee, UK. The study is sponsored by University College London, UK.
Discussion
This is the first study to describe the use of robotic technology to achieve FA TKA, and the only existing clinical trial comparing robotic MA TKA versus robotic FA TKA. The findings of this study will enable an improved understanding of the optimal alignment technique in TKA for achieving high-levels of patient satisfaction, improving functional outcomes, increasing implant survivorship, improving cost-effectiveness, and reducing complications.
Registration
Clinical
Trials.gov
,
NCT04092153
. Registered on 17 September 2019.
Journal Article
Trial of Vancomycin and Cefazolin as Surgical Prophylaxis in Arthroplasty
by
Mulford, Jonathan
,
Buising, Kirsty L.
,
Spelman, Tim
in
Adult
,
Anti-Bacterial Agents - adverse effects
,
Anti-Bacterial Agents - therapeutic use
2023
In this double-blind, randomized trial, vancomycin was added to cefazolin as surgical prophylaxis for arthroplasty. Surgical-site infections occurred in 4.5% of vancomycin recipients and 3.5% of placebo recipients.
Journal Article
The clinical and cost-effectiveness of total versus partial knee replacement in patients with medial compartment osteoarthritis (TOPKAT): 5-year outcomes of a randomised controlled trial
2019
Late-stage isolated medial knee osteoarthritis can be treated with total knee replacement (TKR) or partial knee replacement (PKR). There is high variation in treatment choice and little robust evidence to guide selection. The Total or Partial Knee Arthroplasty Trial (TOPKAT) therefore aims to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of TKR versus PKR in patients with medial compartment osteoarthritis of the knee, and this represents an analysis of the main endpoints at 5 years.
Our multicentre, pragmatic randomised controlled trial was done at 27 UK sites. We used a combined expertise-based and equipoise-based approach, in which patients with isolated osteoarthritis of the medial compartment of the knee and who satisfied general requirements for a medial PKR were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive PKR or TKR by surgeons who were either expert in and willing to perform both surgeries or by a surgeon with particular expertise in the allocated procedure. The primary endpoint was the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) 5 years after randomisation in all patients assigned to groups. Health-care costs (in UK 2017 prices) and cost-effectiveness were also assessed. This trial is registered with ISRCTN (ISRCTN03013488) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01352247).
Between Jan 18, 2010, and Sept 30, 2013, we assessed 962 patients for their eligibility, of whom 431 (45%) patients were excluded (121 [13%] patients did not meet the inclusion criteria and 310 [32%] patients declined to participate) and 528 (55%) patients were randomly assigned to groups. 94% of participants responded to the follow-up survey 5 years after their operation. At the 5-year follow-up, we found no difference in OKS between groups (mean difference 1·04, 95% CI −0·42 to 2·50; p=0·159). In our within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis, we found that PKR was more effective (0·240 additional quality-adjusted life-years, 95% CI 0·046 to 0·434) and less expensive (−£910, 95% CI −1503 to −317) than TKR during the 5 years of follow-up. This finding was a result of slightly better outcomes, lower costs of surgery, and lower follow-up health-care costs with PKR than TKR.
Both TKR and PKR are effective, offer similar clinical outcomes, and result in a similar incidence of re-operations and complications. Based on our clinical findings, and results regarding the lower costs and better cost-effectiveness with PKR during the 5-year study period, we suggest that PKR should be considered the first choice for patients with late-stage isolated medial compartment osteoarthritis.
National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.
Journal Article
Does Tourniquet Use in TKA Affect Recovery of Lower Extremity Strength and Function? A Randomized Trial
by
Kittelson, Andrew J.
,
Yang, Charlie C.
,
Stevens-Lapsley, Jennifer E.
in
Aged
,
Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee - adverse effects
,
Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee - instrumentation
2016
Background
Tourniquet use during total knee arthroplasty (TKA) improves visibility and reduces intraoperative blood loss. However, tourniquet use may also have a negative impact on early recovery of muscle strength and lower extremity function after TKA.
Questions/purposes
The purpose of this study was (1) to determine whether tourniquet use affects recovery of quadriceps strength (primary outcome) during the first 3 postoperative months; and (2) to examine the effects of tourniquet application on secondary outcomes: voluntary quadriceps activation, hamstring strength, unilateral limb balance as well as the effect on operative time and blood loss.
Methods
Twenty-eight patients (mean age 62 ± 6 years; 16 men) undergoing same-day bilateral TKA (56 lower extremities) were enrolled in a prospective, randomized study. Subjects were randomized to receive a tourniquet-assisted knee arthroplasty on one lower extremity while the contralateral limb underwent knee arthroplasty without extended tourniquet use. In the former group, the tourniquet was inflated just before the incision was made and released after cementation; in the latter group, a tourniquet was not used (10 of 28 [36%]) or inflated only during component cementation (18 of 28 [64%]). The choice of no tourniquet or use just during cementation was based on surgeon choice, because some surgeons felt a tourniquet during cementation was necessary to achieve a dry surgical field to maximize cement fixation. A median parapatellar approach and the identical posterior-stabilized TKA design were used by all four fellowship-trained knee surgeons involved. Isometric quadriceps strength, hamstring strength, voluntary quadriceps activation, and unilateral balance were assessed preoperatively, 3 weeks, and 3 months after bilateral knee arthroplasty. Other factors, including pain, range of motion, and lower extremity girth, were assessed for descriptive purposes at each of these time points as well as on the second postoperative day.
Results
Quadriceps strength was slightly lower in the tourniquet group compared with the no-tourniquet group (group difference = 11.27 Nm [95% confidence interval {CI}, 2.33–20.20]; p = 0.01), and these differences persisted at 3 months after surgery (group difference = 9.48 Nm [95% CI, 0.43–18.54]; p = 0.03). Hamstring strength did not differ between groups at any time point nor did measures of quadriceps voluntary activation or measures of unilateral balance ability. There was less estimated intraoperative blood loss in the tourniquet group (84 ± 26 mL) than in the no-tourniquet group (156 ± 63 mL) (group difference = −74 mL [95% CI, −100 to −49]; p < 0.001). However, there was no difference in total blood loss between the groups (group difference = −136 mL [95% CI, −318 to 45]; p = 0.13).
Conclusions
Patients who underwent TKA using a tourniquet had diminished quadriceps strength during the first 3 months after TKA, the clinical significance of which is unclear. Future studies may be warranted to examine the effects of tourniquet use on long-term strength and functional outcomes.
Level of Evidence
Level I, therapeutic study.
Journal Article
Computed tomography-based radiostereometric analysis achieves sufficient precision for femoral implants in total knee arthroplasty: a randomized controlled trial
by
Pripp, Are H.
,
Engseth, Lars H. W.
,
Øhrn, Frank-David
in
Aged
,
Aged, 80 and over
,
Arthroplasty (knee)
2025
Background
Conventional radiostereometric analysis (RSA) has been used for several decades to assess implant migration in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). More recently, computed tomography–based radiostereometric analysis (CT-RSA) has been introduced as an alternative. Experimental studies have demonstrated acceptable precision for CT-RSA; however, this has not yet been validated in a clinical setting. With the emergence of new alignment philosophies in TKA, migration analysis of femoral components has become increasingly important. A key criticism of CT-RSA has been the higher radiation doses compared with conventional RSA, particularly in longitudinal studies involving repeated CT scans. In this study, we evaluated the precision of CT-RSA for assessing femoral component migration in two TKA designs at two different radiation dose levels. We hypothesized that there would be no clinically relevant difference in precision between the two radiation dose levels.
Methods
We performed a randomized controlled trial of 50 patients using Tritanium and GMK Sphere 3D Metal implants and analysed the precision of the method through double examinations expressed as means with 95% confidence intervals at standard and low-dose levels. The main outcome variable was the difference in mean maximum total point motion. We set the clinical meaningful difference to be more than 0.1 mm based on existing literature. Secondary outcome variables were the means and standard deviations of the translation and rotation of the implants.
Findings
We found a precision of (mean, standard deviation) 0.20 (0.08) and 0.17 mm (0.06) for standard and low dose respectively, giving a difference (95% confidence interval) of − 0.03 mm (− 0.06–0.00).
P
-value was 0.031. Variability ratios were 0.009 for the standard deviation test.
Interpretation
In this first clinical study to assess the precision of computed tomography–based radiostereometric analysis for femoral implants in total knee arthroplasty, we found no clinically relevant difference in precision. Our findings confirm that CT-RSA provides sufficient precision in a clinical setting to enable migration analysis of femoral implants in total knee arthroplasty, even when using very low radiation doses.
Highlights
CT-RSA can be used to analyse migration of femoral implants in total knee arthroplasty.
Journal Article
Comparative Epidemiology of Revision Arthroplasty: Failed THA Poses Greater Clinical and Economic Burdens Than Failed TKA
2015
Background
Revision THA and TKA are growing and important clinical and economic challenges. Healthcare systems tend to combine revision joint replacement procedures into a single service line, and differences between revision THA and revision TKA remain incompletely characterized. These differences carry implications for guiding care and resource allocation. We therefore evaluated epidemiologic trends associated with revision THAs and TKAs.
Questions/purposes
We sought to determine differences in (1) the number of patients undergoing revision TKA and THA and respective demographic trends; (2) differences in the indications for and types of revision TKA and THA; (3) differences in patient severity of illness scoring between THA and TKA; and (4) differences in resource utilization (including cost and length of stay [LOS]) between revision THA and TKA.
Methods
The Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) was used to evaluate 235,857 revision THAs and 301,718 revision TKAs between October 1, 2005 and December 31, 2010. Patient characteristics, procedure information, and resource utilization were compared across revision THAs and TKAs. A revision burden (ratio of number of revisions to total number of revision and primary surgeries) was calculated for hip and knee procedures. Severity of illness scoring and cost calculations were derived from the NIS. As our study was principally descriptive, statistical analyses generally were not performed; however, owing to the large sample size available to us through this NIS analysis, even small observed differences presented are likely to be highly statistically significant.
Results
Revision TKAs increased by 39% (revision burden, 9.1%–9.6%) and THAs increased by 23% (revision burden, 15.4%–14.6%). Revision THAs were performed more often in older patients compared with revision TKAs. Periprosthetic joint infection (25%) and mechanical loosening (19%) were the most common reasons for revision TKA compared with dislocation (22%) and mechanical loosening (20%) for revision THA. Full (all-component) revision was more common in revision THAs (43%) than in TKAs (37%). Patients who underwent revision THA generally were sicker (> 50% major severity of illness score) than patients who underwent revision TKA (65% moderate severity of illness score). Mean LOS was longer for revision THAs than for TKAs. Mean hospitalization costs were slightly higher for revision THA (USD 24,697 +/− USD 40,489 [SD]) than revision TKA (USD 23,130 +/− USD 36,643 [SD]). Periprosthetic joint infection and periprosthetic fracture were associated with the greatest LOS and costs for revision THAs and TKAs.
Conclusions
These data could prove important for healthcare systems to appropriately allocate resources to hip and knee procedures: the revision burden for THA is 52% greater than for TKA, but revision TKAs are increasing at a faster rate. Likewise, the treating clinician should understand that while both revision THAs and TKAs bear significant clinical and economic costs, patients undergoing revision THA tend to be older, sicker, and have greater costs of care.
Journal Article
Greater activity, better range of motion and higher quality of life following unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a comparative case–control study
by
Leithner, Andreas
,
Hauer Georg
,
Bernhardt, Gerwin A
in
Joint replacement surgery
,
Joint surgery
,
Quality of life
2020
PurposeThe purpose of this study was to provide a matched cohort comparison of clinical and functional outcome scores, range of motion and quality of life following unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) or total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The hypothesis was that patients receiving UKA report better results than comparable patients who receive conventional TKA.MethodsClinical and functional results of 35 patients with medial end-stage osteoarthritis who had received a fixed-bearing UKA were compared with the results of 35 matched patients who had received a TKA from the same manufacturer by the same surgeon. Outcome scores were measured before surgery and at final follow-up using Tegner Activity Scale (TAS), range of motion (ROM) and Short Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36). The Knee Society Score (KSS) was assessed at final follow-up. The mean observation period was 2.3 years in both groups.ResultsThe preoperative knee scores had no statistically significant differences between the two groups. Postoperatively, however, UKAs performed significantly better regarding TAS and ROM (4 vs. 3 and 118.4 vs. 103.7, respectively). The results of the SF-36 showed significantly better results for the UKA group in the mental component summary score and in the subscale of social function.ConclusionsThe present study suggests that UKA is associated with higher activity level, higher quality of life, and greater ROM when compared with TKA on comparable patients. Prolonged clinical follow-up in a larger patient cohort with a randomised-controlled study design would be beneficial to confirm these findings.Level of evidenceIII.
Journal Article
Better radiological outcomes but equal clinical function of a novel knee arthroplasty robot system: a prospective randomized controlled trial
by
Chen, Jiazheng
,
Ren, Yiming
,
Tian, Hua
in
Aged
,
Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee - adverse effects
,
Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee - instrumentation
2025
Purpose
This study aimed to evaluate the early clinical and radiological outcomes of robot assisted total knee arthroplasty, and to determine the efficiency and safety of its bone resection and implant positioning of the novel robot system.
Methods
144 patients who underwent primary TKA were enrolled in this prospective, multicenter RCT conducted in three hospitals. five patients were lost to follow-up at six weeks after surgery. Therefore, 139 patients (73 in the RA TKA group and 66 in the CI TKA group) remained in the final analysis. The primary outcome was the rate of patients whose postoperative alignment was less than 3° deviated from the planned evaluated by full-length weight-bearing X-rays of the lower limb at 12 weeks postoperatively. Secondary outcomes included coronal and sagittal alignment of the components, operation times, blood loss, 12-week range of motion(ROM), 12-week postoperative functional outcomes and satisfaction evaluated by the American Knee Society Score (KSS) and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and adverse events (AEs).
Results
At 12 weeks postoperatively, we found the rate of radiographic inliers was significantly higher in the RA TKA group (90.4% vs. 59.1%;
p
< 0.05). The difference between planned and postoperative frontal femoral component (FFC) angle, frontal tibia component (FTC) angle and lateral femoral component (LFC) angle are significantly smaller in the RA TKA group (
p
< 0.05). The operation time was significantly longer in the RA TKA group than in the CI TKA group (133.01 vs. 92.33 min;
p
< 0.05). There was no significant difference in blood loss, 12-week ROM, 12-week postoperative functional outcomes and satisfaction evaluated by KSS and WOMAC scores. There were no AEs or SAEs that were determined to be “related” to the robotic system.
Conclusion
The novel robot assisted TKA is safe and more precise in bone resection and implant positioning as demonstrated in this trial.
Journal Article
Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathway for primary hip and knee arthroplasty: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
by
Li, Jingyi
,
Zhu, Haibei
,
Liao, Ren
in
Anesthesiology
,
Arthroplasty
,
Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip - adverse effects
2019
Background
With the substantially growing trend of the aging populations in China and the rest of the world, the number of total hip and total knee arthroplasty (THA and TKA) cases are increasing dramatically. It is important to develop practical strategies to improve the quality of healthcare and better outcome for patients undergoing THA and TKA. Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathways have been reported to promote earlier recovery and be beneficial for patients. We propose the hypothesis that the ERAS pathway could reduce the length of stay (LOS) in hospital for patients undergoing primary THA or TKA.
Methods/Design
This trial is a prospective, open-labelled, multi-centered, randomized controlled trial that will test the superiority of the ERAS pathway in term of LOS in hospital for the patients undergoing primary THA or TKA compared to current non-ERAS clinical practice. A total of 640 patients undergoing primary THA or TKA will be randomly allocated to either ERAS pathway (ERAS group) or conventional care according to individual participating center (non-ERAS group). The primary outcome is the total LOS in hospital; the secondary outcomes include postoperative LOS, all-cause mortality by 30 days after operation, in-hospital complications, early mobilization, postoperative pain control, total in-hospital cost, and readmission rate by 30 days after discharge from the hospital.
Discussion
This trial is designed to evaluate the superiority of the ERAS pathway to conventional non-ERAS clinical practice in reducing the LOS. The results may provide new insight into the clinical applications of the ERAS pathway for THA and TKA.
Trial registration
National Institutes of Health Clinical Trials Registry,
NCT03517098
. Registered on 4 May 2018.
Journal Article