Explore the vast range of titles available.

Total joint replacements for end-stage osteoarthritis of the hip and knee are cost-effective and demonstrate significant clinical improvement. However, robust population based lifetime-risk data for implant revision are not available to aid patient decision making, which is a particular problem in young patient groups deciding on best-timing for surgery. We did implant survival analysis on all patients within the Clinical Practice Research Datalink who had undergone total hip replacement or total knee replacement. These data were adjusted for all-cause mortality with data from the Office for National Statistics and used to generate lifetime risks of revision surgery based on increasing age at the time of primary surgery. We identified 63 158 patients who had undergone total hip replacement and 54 276 who had total knee replacement between Jan 1, 1991, and Aug 10, 2011, and followed up these patients to a maximum of 20 years. For total hip replacement, 10-year implant survival rate was 95·6% (95% CI 95·3–95·9) and 20-year rate was 85·0% (83·2–86·6). For total knee replacement, 10-year implant survival rate was 96·1% (95·8–96·4), and 20-year implant survival rate was 89·7% (87·5–91·5). The lifetime risk of requiring revision surgery in patients who had total hip replacement or total knee replacement over the age of 70 years was about 5% with no difference between sexes. For those who had surgery younger than 70 years, however, the lifetime risk of revision increased for younger patients, up to 35% (95% CI 30·9–39·1) for men in their early 50s, with large differences seen between male and female patients (15% lower for women in same age group). The median time to revision for patients who had surgery younger than age 60 was 4·4 years. Our study used novel methodology to investigate and offer new insight into the importance of young age and risk of revision after total hip or knee replacement. Our evidence challenges the increasing trend for more total hip replacements and total knee replacements to be done in the younger patient group, and these data should be offered to patients as part of the shared decision making process. Oxford Musculoskeletal Biomedical Research Unit, National Institute for Health Research.

Knee osteoarthritis is highly prevalent among older adults. Treatments include exercise, weight management, training in self-efficacy and pain-coping skills, and medications (commonly topical or oral NSAIDs, the latter often with a proton-pump inhibitor).

ObjectiveTanezumab, a nerve growth factor inhibitor, was investigated for osteoarthritis (OA) of the hip or knee in a study with 24-week treatment and 24-week safety follow-up.MethodsThis double-blind, randomised, phase III study enrolled adults in Europe and Japan with moderate-to-severe OA who had not responded to or could not tolerate standard-of-care analgesics. Patients were randomised to tanezumab 2.5 mg or 5 mg subcutaneously or matching placebo every 8 weeks (three doses). Co-primary end points were change from baseline to week 24 in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain and Physical Function, and Patient’s Global Assessment of OA (PGA-OA). Joint safety and neurological assessments continued throughout the 48-week study.ResultsFrom March 2016 to December 2017, 849 patients were randomised and evaluated (placebo n=282, tanezumab 2.5 mg n=283, tanezumab 5 mg n=284). At week 24, there was a statistically significant improvement from baseline for tanezumab 5 mg compared with placebo for WOMAC Pain (least squares mean difference±SE –0.62±0.18, p=0.0006), WOMAC Physical Function (–0.71±0.17, p<0.0001) and PGA-OA (–0.19±0.07, p=0.0051). For tanezumab 2.5 mg, there was a statistically significant improvement in WOMAC Pain and Physical Function, but not PGA-OA. Rapidly progressive osteoarthritis (RPOA) was observed in 1.4% (4/283) and 2.8% (8/284) of patients in the tanezumab 2.5 mg and tanezumab 5 mg groups, respectively and none receiving placebo. Total joint replacements (TJRs) were similarly distributed across all three treatment groups (6.7%–7.8%). Tanezumab-treated patients experienced more paraesthesia (5 mg) and hypoaesthesia (both doses) than placebo.ConclusionTanezumab 5 mg statistically significantly improved pain, physical function and PGA-OA, but tanezumab 2.5 mg only achieved two co-primary end points. RPOA occurred more frequently with tanezumab 5 mg than tanezumab 2.5 mg. TJRs were similarly distributed across all three groups.Trial registration numberNCT02709486.

ObjectivesOsteoarthritis is a common and severe, multifactorial disease with a well-established genetic component. However, little is known about how genetics affect disease progression, and thereby the need for joint placement. Therefore, we aimed to investigate whether the genetic associations of knee and hip osteoarthritis differ between patients treated with joint replacement and patients without joint replacement.MethodsWe included knee and hip osteoarthritis cases along with healthy controls, altogether counting >700 000 individuals. The cases were divided into two groups based on joint replacement status (surgical vs non-surgical) and included in four genome-wide association meta-analyses: surgical knee osteoarthritis (N = 22 525), non-surgical knee osteoarthritis (N = 38 626), surgical hip osteoarthritis (N = 20 221) and non-surgical hip osteoarthritis (N = 17 847). In addition, we tested for genetic correlation between the osteoarthritis groups and the pain phenotypes intervertebral disc disorder, dorsalgia, fibromyalgia, migraine and joint pain.ResultsWe identified 52 sequence variants associated with knee osteoarthritis (surgical: 17, non-surgical: 3) or hip osteoarthritis (surgical: 34, non-surgical: 1). For the surgical phenotypes, we identified 10 novel variants, including genes involved in autophagy (rs2447606 in ATG7) and mechanotransduction (rs202127176 in PIEZO1). One variant, rs13107325 in SLC39A8, associated more strongly with non-surgical knee osteoarthritis than surgical knee osteoarthritis. For all other variants, significance and effect sizes were higher for the surgical phenotypes. In contrast, genetic correlations with pain phenotypes tended to be stronger in the non-surgical groups.ConclusionsOur results indicate differences in genetic associations between knee and hip osteoarthritis depending on joint replacement status.

In patients with knee osteoarthritis, total knee replacement followed by nonsurgical treatment resulted in greater pain relief and functional improvement after 12 months than did nonsurgical treatment alone, but it was associated with a higher number of serious adverse events. Total knee replacement is considered to be an effective treatment for end-stage knee osteoarthritis. 1 The number of total knee replacements performed each year in the United States has increased dramatically, from 31.2 per 100,000 person-years during the period 1971–1976 to 220.9 during the period 2005–2008. 2 In 2012, more than 670,000 total knee replacements were performed in the United States alone, with corresponding aggregate charges of $36.1 billion. 3 The number of total knee replacements is expected to increase as the average age of the population increases, 4 which highlights the associated future economic burden. Despite the large number of procedures performed annually, . . .

ObjectivesOsteoarthritis (OA) structural status is imperfectly classified using radiographic assessment. Statistical shape modelling (SSM), a form of machine-learning, provides precise quantification of a characteristic 3D OA bone shape. We aimed to determine the benefits of this novel measure of OA status for assessing risks of clinically important outcomes.MethodsThe study used 4796 individuals from the Osteoarthritis Initiative cohort. SSM-derived femur bone shape (B-score) was measured from all 9433 baseline knee MRIs. We examined the relationship between B-score, radiographic Kellgren-Lawrence grade (KLG) and current and future pain and function as well as total knee replacement (TKR) up to 8 years.ResultsB-score repeatability supported 40 discrete grades. KLG and B-score were both associated with risk of current and future pain, functional limitation and TKR; logistic regression curves were similar. However, each KLG included a wide range of B-scores. For example, for KLG3, risk of pain was 34.4 (95% CI 31.7 to 37.0)%, but B-scores within KLG3 knees ranged from 0 to 6; for B-score 0, risk was 17.0 (16.1 to 17.9)% while for B-score 6, it was 52.1 (48.8 to 55.4)%. For TKR, KLG3 risk was 15.3 (13.3 to 17.3)%; while B-score 0 had negligible risk, B-score 6 risk was 35.6 (31.8 to 39.6)%. Age, sex and body mass index had negligible effects on association between B-score and symptoms.ConclusionsB-score provides reader-independent quantification using a single time-point, providing unambiguous OA status with defined clinical risks across the whole range of disease including pre-radiographic OA. B-score heralds a step-change in OA stratification for interventions and improved personalised assessment, analogous to the T-score in osteoporosis.

Pain and function improve dramatically in the first three months after hip and knee arthroplasty but the trajectory after three months is less well described. It is also unclear how pre-operative pain and function influence short- and long-term recovery. We explored the trajectory of change in function and pain until and beyond 3-months post-operatively and the influence of pre-operative self-reported symptoms. The study was a prospective cohort study of 164 patients undergoing primary hip (n = 80) or knee (n = 84) arthroplasty in the United Kingdom. Self-reported measures of pain and function using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis index were collected pre-operatively and at 3 and 12 months post-operatively. Hip and knee arthroplasties were analysed separately, and patients were split into two groups: those with high or low symptoms pre-operatively. Multilevel regression models were used for each outcome (pain and function), and the trajectories of change were charted (0-3 months and 3-12 months). Hip: Most improvement occurred within the first 3 months following hip surgery and patients with worse pre-operative scores had greater changes. The mean changes observed between 3 and twelve months were statistically insignificant. One year after surgery, patients with worse pre-operative scores had post-operative outcomes similar to those observed among patients with less severe pre-operative symptoms. Knee: Most improvement occurred in the first 3 months following knee surgery with no significant change thereafter. Despite greater mean change during the first three months, patients with worse pre-operative scores had not 'caught-up' with those with less severe pre-operative symptoms 12 months after their surgery. Most symptomatic improvement occurred within the first 3 months after surgery with no significant change between 3-12 months. Further investigations are now required to determine if patients with severe symptoms at the time of their knee arthroplasty have a different pre-surgical history than those with less severe symptoms and if they could benefit from earlier surgical intervention and tailored rehabilitation to achieve better post-operative patient-reported outcomes.

Knee replacements are the mainstay of treatment for end-stage osteoarthritis and are effective. Given time, all knee replacements will fail and knowing when this failure might happen is important. We aimed to establish how long a knee replacement lasts. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE and Embase for case series and cohort studies published from database inception until July 21, 2018. Articles reporting 15 year or greater survival of primary total knee replacement (TKR), unicondylar knee replacement (UKR), and patellofemoral replacements in patients with osteoarthritis were included. Articles that reviewed specifically complex primary surgeries or revisions were excluded. Survival and implant data were extracted, with all-cause survival of the knee replacement construct being the primary outcome. We also reviewed national joint replacement registry reports and extracted the data to be analysed separately. In the meta-analysis, we weighted each series and calculated a pooled survival estimate for each data source at 15 years, 20 years, and 25 years, using a fixed-effects model. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42018105188. From 4363 references found by our initial search, we identified 33 case series in 30 eligible articles, which reported all-cause survival for 6490 TKRs (26 case series) and 742 UKRs (seven case series). No case series reporting on patellofemoral replacements met our inclusion criteria, and no case series reported 25 year survival for TKR. The estimated 25 year survival for UKR (based on one case series) was 72·0% (95% CI 58·0–95·0). Registries contributed 299 291 TKRs (47 series) and 7714 UKRs (five series). The pooled registry 25 year survival of TKRs (14 registries) was 82·3% (95% CI 81·3–83·2) and of UKRs (four registries) was 69·8% (67·6–72·1). Our pooled registry data, which we believe to be more accurate than the case series data, shows that approximately 82% of TKRs last 25 years and 70% of UKRs last 25 years. These findings will be of use to patients and health-care providers; further information is required to predict exactly how long specific knee replacements will last. The National Institute for Health Research, the National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and Isle of Man, and the Royal College of Surgeons of England.

Purpose Kinematic alignment in TKA is supposed to restore function by aligning the components to the premorbid flexion–extension axis instead of altering the joint line and natural kinematic axes of the knee. The purpose of this study was to compare mechanically aligned TKA to kinematic alignment. Methods In this study, 200 patients underwent TKA and were randomly assigned to 2 groups: 100 TKAs were performed using kinematic alignment with custom-made cutting guides in order to complete cruciate-retaining TKA; the other 100 patients underwent TKA that was manually performed using mechanical alignment. The WOMAC and combined Knee Society Score (KSS), as well as radiological alignment, were determined as outcome parameters at the 12-month endpoint. Results WOMAC and KSS significantly improved in both groups. There was a significant difference in both scores between groups in favour of kinematic alignment. Although the kinematic alignment group demonstrated significantly better overall results, more outliers with poor outcomes were also seen in this group. A correlation between post-operative alignment deviation from the initial plan and poor outcomes was also noted. The most important finding of this study is that applying kinematic alignment in TKA achieves comparable results to mechanical alignment in TKA. This study also shows that restoring the premorbid flexion–extension axis of the knee joint leads to better overall functional results. Conclusion Kinematic alignment is a favourable technique for TKA. Clinical relevance The kinematic alignment idea might be a considerable alternative to mechanical alignment in the future. Level of evidence II.

Background Medicare is rapidly moving toward using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for outcomes assessment and justification of orthopaedic and other procedures. Numerous measures have been developed to study knee osteoarthritis (OA); however, many of these surveys are long, disruptive to clinic flow, and result in incomplete data capture and/or low followup rates. The Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome (KOOS) physical function short-form (KOOS-PS), while shorter, ignores pain, which is a primary concern of patients with advanced knee OA. Questions/purposes Our objective was to derive and validate a short-form survey focused on the patient with end-stage knee OA undergoing TKA. Methods Using our hospital’s knee replacement registry, we retrospectively identified 2291 patients with knee OA who underwent primary unilateral TKA and had completed preoperative and 2-year postoperative PROMs. We assessed 30 items from the 42-item KOOS that were quantitatively most difficult for patients to perform before TKA and qualitatively most relevant to patients with end-stage knee OA. Rasch analysis identified the KOOS, JR, a seven-item instrument, representing a single dimension, which we define as “knee health” because it reflects aspects of pain, symptom severity, and activities of daily living (ADL) including movements or activities that are directly relevant and difficult for patients with advanced knee OA. We assessed the internal consistency, external validity (versus KOOS and WOMAC domains), responsiveness, and floor and ceiling effects of the KOOS, JR. External validation was performed using calculated KOOS, JR scores in collaboration with a nationally representative joint replacement registry, the Function and Outcomes Research for Comparative Effectiveness in Total Joint Replacement (FORCE-TJR). Results Internal consistency for the KOOS, JR was high (Person Separation Index, 0.84; and 0.85 [FORCE]), external validity against other validated knee surveys was excellent (Spearman correlation coefficient, ρ 0.54–0.91), particularly for the KOOS pain (ρ 0.89 [95% CI, 0.88–0.91] Hospital for Special Surgery [HSS]; and 0.91 [95% CI, 0.90–0.93] [FORCE]) and KOOS ADL (ρ 0.87 [95% CI, 0.85–0.88] [HSS]; and 0.84 [95% CI, 0.81–0.87] [FORCE]). The KOOS, JR responsiveness (standardized response means, 1.79 [95% CI, 1.70–1.88] [HSS]; and 1.70 [95% CI, 1.54–1.86] [FORCE]) was high and floor 0.4–1.2%) and ceiling (18.8–21.8%) effects were favorable. Conclusions The new short knee PROM, the KOOS, JR, provides a single score representing “knee health” as it combines pain, symptoms, and functional limitations in a single score. This short-form PROM is patient-relevant and efficient. Level of Evidence Level III, diagnostic study.