Indications and techniques for non-articulating spacers in massive bone loss following prosthetic knee joint infection: a scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a destructive complication of knee replacement surgery (KR). In two-stage revision a spacer is required to maintain limb length and alignment and provide a stable limb on which to mobilise. Spacers may be articulating or static with the gold standard spacer yet to be defined. The aims of this scoping review were to summarise the types of static spacer used to treat PJI after KR, their indications for use and early complication rates. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review based on the Joanna Briggs Institute's "JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis" Scoping review reported following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist. MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL were searched from 2005 to 2022 for studies on the use of static spacers for PJI after KR. RESULTS: 41 studies (1230 patients/knees) were identified describing 42 static spacer constructs. Twenty-three (23/42 [54.2%]) incorporated cement augmented with metalwork, while nineteen (19/42, [45.9%]) were made of cement alone. Spacers were most frequently anchored in the diaphysis (22/42, [53.3%]), particularly in the setting of extensive bone loss (mean AORI Type = F3/T3; 11/15 studies 78.3% diaphyseal anchoring). 7.1% (79 of 1117 knees) of static spacers had a complication requiring further surgery prior to planned second stage with the most common complication being infection (86.1%). CONCLUSIONS: This study has summarised the large variety in static spacer constructs used for staged revision KR for PJI. Static spacers were associated with a high risk of complications and further work in this area is required to improve the quality of care in this vulnerable group.

Preoperative Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Polymerase Chain Reaction Test at Between 48 and 72 Hours Preoperatively is Safe for Patients Undergoing Primary and Revision Hip and Knee Arthroplasty: A Multicentre International Study.

BACKGROUND: Patients undergoing lower limb arthroplasty who are severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) positive at the time of surgery have a high risk of mortality. The National Institute for Health and Clinical Care Excellence and the British Orthopaedic Association advise self-isolation for 14 days preoperatively in patients at a high risk of adverse outcomes due to COVID-19. The aim of the study is to assess whether preoperative polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for SARS-CoV-2 could be performed at between 48 and 72 hours preoperatively with specific advice about minimizing the risk of SARS-CoV-2 restricted to between PCR and admission. METHODS: A multicentre, international, observational cohort study of 1,000 lower limb arthroplasty cases was performed. The dual primary outcomes were 30-day conversion to SARS-CoV-2 positive and 30-day SARS-CoV-2 mortality. Secondary outcomes included 30-day SARS-CoV-2 morbidity. RESULTS: Of the 1,000 cases, 935 (94%) had a PCR between 48 and 72 hours preoperatively. All cases were admitted to and had surgery through a COVID-free pathway. Primary knee arthroplasty was performed in 41% of cases, primary hip arthroplasty in 40%, revision knee arthroplasty in 11%, and revision hip arthroplasty in 9%. Six percent of operations were emergency operations. No cases of SARS-CoV-2 were identified within the first 30 days. CONCLUSION: Preoperative SARS-CoV-2 PCR test between 48 and 72 hours preoperatively with advice about minimizing the risk of SARS-CoV-2 restricted to between PCR and admission in conjunction with a COVID-free pathway is safe for patients undergoing primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty. Preoperative SARS-CoV-2 PCR test alone may be safe but further adequately powered studies are required. This information is important for shared decision making with patients during the current pandemic.

The effect of obesity on revision rate in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

The number of patients with knee osteoarthritis, the proportion that is obese and the number undergoing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) are all increasing. The primary aim of this systematic review was to determine the effects of obesity on outcomes in UKA. A systematic review was performed using PRISMA guidelines and the primary outcome was revision rate per 100 observed component years, with a BMI of ≥ 30 used to define obesity. The MINORS criteria and OCEBM criteria were used to assess risk of bias and level of evidence, respectively. 9 studies were included in the analysis. In total there were 4621 knees that underwent UKA. The mean age in included studies was reported to be 63 years (mean range 59.5-72 years old)) and range of follow up was 2-18 years. Four studies were OCEBM level 2b and the average MINORS score was 13. The mean revision rate in obese patients (BMI > 30) was 0.33% pa (95% CI - 3.16 to 2.5) higher than in non-obese patients, however this was not statistically significant (p = 0.82). This meta-analysis concludes that there is no significant difference in outcomes between obese and non-obese patients undergoing UKA. There is currently no evidence that obesity should be considered a definite contraindication to UKA. Further studies are needed to increase the numbers in meta-analysis to explore activity levels, surgeon's operative data, implant design and perioperative complications and revision in more depth.Level of evidence Level III.

Threshold for Computer- and Robot-Assisted Knee and Hip Replacements in the English National Health Service.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate threshold prices for computer- and robot-assisted knee and hip replacement. METHODS: A lifetime cohort Markov model provided the framework for analysis. Linked primary care and inpatient hospital records informed estimates of outcomes under current practice. Outcomes were estimated under a range of hypothetical relative improvements in quality of life if unrevised and in revision risk after computer or robot-assisted surgery. Threshold prices, a price at which the net health benefit from funding the intervention would be zero, for these improvements were estimated for a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20 000 per additional quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. RESULTS: For average patient profiles under current knee and hip replacement practice, lifetime QALYs were 10.3 (9.9 to 10.7) and 11.0 (10.6 to 11.4), with costs of £6060 (£5947 to £6203) and £6506 (£6335 to £6710) for knee and hip replacement, respectively. A combined 50% relative reduction in risk of revision and 5% improvement in postoperative quality of life if unrevised would, for example, result in QALYs increasing to 10.9 (10.4 to 11.3) and 11.6 (11.2 to 12.0), and costs falling to £5880 (£5816 to £5956) and £6258 (£6149 to £6376) after knee and hip replacement, respectively. These particular improvements would have an associated threshold price of £11 182 (£10 691 to £11 721) for knee replacement and £12 134 (£11 616 to £12 701) for hip replacement. The 50% reduction in revision rate alone would have associated threshold prices of £1094 (£788 to £1488) and £1347 (£961 to £1842), and the 5% improvement in quality of life alone would have associated threshold prices of £9911 (£9476 to £10 296) and £10 578 (£10 171 to £10 982). CONCLUSIONS: At current prices, computer- and robot-assisted knee and hip replacement will likely need to lead to improvements in patient-reported outcomes in addition to any reduction in the risk revision.

Health Care Professionals' Perceptions of the Arthroplasty Patient Experience: Planning Phase in the Development of a Patient-Reported Outcome Measure.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to explore health care professionals' perceptions and perspectives of surgery and early recovery for patients undergoing lower limb arthroplasty. DESIGN: Thematic analysis with semi-structured qualitative interviews. METHODS: Following ethical approval, interviews were performed with recovery room nurses (n=3), ward nurses (n=2), surgeons (n=5), anesthesiologists (n=5), physiotherapists (n=5), and occupational therapists (n=2). Data were analyzed using an in-depth narrative thematic analysis method. NVivo qualitative data analysis software was used. FINDINGS: Three main themes evolved from the interviews: immediate patient recovery issues, discharge criteria, and priorities during hospitalization from health care providers' perspectives. CONCLUSIONS: The early postoperative recovery period can be a challenging time for health care providers and patients alike. However, identifying key areas of importance can provide insight and guide focus in clinical practice, thus improving patient recovery.

Ten-year patient-reported outcomes following total and minimally invasive unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a propensity score-matched cohort analysis.

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.

Age and Outcomes of Medial Meniscal-Bearing Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: National joint registries report increasing revision rates with decreasing patient age for all types of joint arthroplasty. This study aimed to explore the effect of age on function and revision risk in patients undergoing medial meniscal-bearing UKA. METHODS: A prospectively followed cohort of 1000 consecutive medial meniscal-bearing UKAs at a designer center was analyzed. All knees were implanted for recommended indications and had mean 10-year follow-up. Patients were grouped by age at surgery (<55, 55 to <65, 65 to <75, 75+). Oxford Knee Scores (OKS) were assessed at 5 and 10 years. Component-time revision incidence rates and Kaplan-Meier implant survival were calculated. RESULTS: Mean patient age at surgery was 66.6 years (range, 33-88). All age-groups had significant (P < .001) improvement in OKS over time, and at 5 years achieved a median OKS of 44. At 10 years, median OKS, from youngest group to eldest, were 44, 45, 42, and 39, with the eldest group having a significantly lower OKS (P < .01). Ten-year implant survival rates were 97%, 94%, 94%, and 93%, respectively, and was not significantly associated with age at UKA. CONCLUSION: Medial meniscal-bearing UKA provides good functional outcomes in all age-groups; however, in older patients (75+), the functional outcome deteriorated at 10 years presumably due to deteriorating health. Contrary to registry observations, the revision rate was not higher in younger patients. These results suggest that, with correct indications, patient age should not be considered a contraindication to medial meniscal-bearing UKA.

Early recovery following lower limb arthroplasty: Qualitative interviews with patients undergoing elective hip and knee replacement surgery. Initial phase in the development of a patient-reported outcome measure.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To explore the patients' perspective of surgery and early recovery when undergoing lower limb (hip or knee) arthroplasty. BACKGROUND: Lower limb arthroplasty is a commonly performed procedure for symptomatic arthritis, which has not responded to conservative medical treatment. Each patient's perspective of the surgical process and early recovery period impacts on their quality of life. DESIGN: Open, semistructured qualitative interviews were used to allow for a deeper understanding of the patient perspective when undergoing a hip or knee arthroplasty. METHODS: Following ethical approval, 30 patients were interviewed between August and November 2016 during the perioperative period while undergoing an elective hip or knee arthroplasty (n = 30). The interviews were performed between the day of surgery and a nine-week postoperative clinic appointment. Data were analysed using an in-depth narrative thematic analysis method. NVivo qualitative data analysis software was used. RESULTS: Seven main themes evolved from the interviews: "improving function and mobility", "pain", "experiences of health care", "support from others", "involvement and understanding of care decisions", "behaviour and coping" and "fatigue and sleeping". CONCLUSIONS: The early postoperative recovery period is of vital importance to all surgical patients. This is no different for the orthopaedic patient. However, identifying key self-reported areas of importance from patients can guide clinical focus for healthcare professionals. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: To have specific patient-reported information regarding key areas of importance during the perioperative phase is invaluable when caring for the orthopaedic surgical patient. It gives insight and understanding in to this increasing population group. This study has also served as a starting point in the development of a questionnaire which could be used to assess interventions in the lower limb arthroplasty population. These results will influence both items and content of the questionnaire.

Long-term outcomes of over 8,000 medial Oxford Phase 3 Unicompartmental Knees-a systematic review.

Background and purpose - There is debate as to the relative merits of unicompartmental and total knee arthroplasty (UKA, TKA). Although the designer surgeons have achieved good results with the Oxford UKA there is concern over the reproducibility of these outcomes. Therefore, we evaluated published long-term outcomes of the Oxford Phase 3 UKA. Patients and methods - We searched databases to identify studies reporting ≥10 year outcomes of the medial Oxford Phase 3 UKA. Revision, non-revision, and re-operation rates were calculated per 100 component years (% pa). Results - 15 studies with 8,658 knees were included. The annual revision rate was 0.74% pa (95% CI 0.67-0.81, n = 8,406) corresponding to a 10-year survival of 93% and 15-year survival of 89%. The non-revision re-operation rate was 0.19% pa (95% CI 0.13-0.25, n = 3,482). The re-operation rate was 0.89% pa (95% CI 0.77-1.02, n = 3,482). The most common causes of revision were lateral disease progression (1.42%), aseptic loosening (1.25%), bearing dislocation (0.58%), and pain (0.57%) (n = 8,658). Average OKS scores were 40 at 10 years (n = 3,417). The incidence of medical complications was 0.83% (n = 1,443). Interpretation - Very good outcomes were achieved by both designer and non-designer surgeons. The PROMs, medical complication rate, and non-revision re-operation rate were better than those found in meta-analyses and publications for TKA but the revision rate was higher. However, if failure is considered to be all re-operations and not just revisions, then the failure rate of UKA was less than that of TKA.

Perioperative adjuvant corticosteroids for postoperative analgesia in knee arthroplasty.

Background and purpose - Immediate postoperative pain management offered in knee arthroplasty is suboptimal in up to one-third of patients resulting in high opiate consumption and delayed discharge. In this meta-analysis we investigate the analgesic effect and safety of perioperative adjuvant corticosteroids in knee arthroplasty. Methods - Databases Medline, Embase, and Central were searched for randomized studies comparing the analgesic effect of adjuvant perioperative corticosteroids in knee arthroplasty. Our primary outcome was pain score at 24 hours postoperatively. Secondary outcomes included pain at 12, 48, and 72 hours, opiate consumption, postoperative nausea and vomiting, infection, and discharge time. Systemic (intravenous) and local (intra-articular) corticosteroids were analyzed separately. Results - 14 randomized controlled trials (1,396 knees) were included. Mean corticosteroid dosages were predominantly 50-75mg oral prednisolone equivalents for both systemic and local routes. Systemic corticosteroids demonstrated statistically significant and clinically modest reductions in pain at 12 hours by -1.1 points (95%CI -2.2 to 0.02), 24 hours by -1.3 points (CI -2.3 to -0.26) and 48 hours by -0.4 points (CI -0.67 to -0.04). Local corticosteroids did not reduce pain. Opiate consumption, postoperative nausea and vomiting, infection, or time till discharge were similar between groups. Interpretation - Corticosteroids modestly reduce pain postoperatively at 12 and 24 hours when used systemically without any increase in associated risks for dosages between 50 and 75 mg oral prednisolone equivalents.

Liposomal bupivacaine infiltration at the surgical site for the management of postoperative pain.

BACKGROUND: Despite multi-modal analgesic techniques, acute postoperative pain remains an unmet health need, with up to three quarters of people undergoing surgery reporting significant pain. Liposomal bupivacaine is an analgesic consisting of bupivacaine hydrochloride encapsulated within multiple, non-concentric lipid bi-layers offering a novel method of sustained-release analgesia. OBJECTIVES: To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of liposomal bupivacaine infiltration at the surgical site for the management of postoperative pain. SEARCH METHODS: On 13 January 2016 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, Embase, ISI Web of Science and reference lists of retrieved articles. We obtained clinical trial reports and synopses of published and unpublished studies from Internet sources, and searched clinical trials databases for ongoing trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised, double-blind, placebo- or active-controlled clinical trials in people aged 18 years or over undergoing elective surgery, at any surgical site, were included if they compared liposomal bupivacaine infiltration at the surgical site with placebo or other type of analgesia. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently considered trials for inclusion, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. We performed data analysis using standard statistical techniques as described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, using Review Manager 5.3. We planned to perform a meta-analysis and produce a 'Summary of findings' table for each comparison however there were insufficient data to ensure a clinically meaningful answer. As such we have produced two 'Summary of findings' tables in a narrative format. Where possible we assessed the quality of evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We identified nine studies (10 reports, 1377 participants) that met inclusion criteria. Four Phase II dose-escalating/de-escalating trials, designed to evaluate and demonstrate efficacy and safety, presented pooled data that we could not use. Of the remaining five parallel-arm studies (965 participants), two were placebo controlled and three used bupivacaine hydrochloride local anaesthetic infiltration as a control. Using the Cochrane tool, we judged most studies to be at unclear risk of bias overall; however, two studies were at high risk of selective reporting bias and four studies were at high risk of bias due to size (fewer than 50 participants per treatment arm).Three studies (551 participants) reported the primary outcome cumulative pain intensity over 72 hours following surgery. Compared to placebo, liposomal bupivacaine was associated with a lower cumulative pain score between the end of the operation (0 hours) and 72 hours (one study, very low quality). Compared to bupivacaine hydrochloride, two studies showed no difference for this outcome (very low quality evidence), however due to differences in the surgical population and surgical procedure (breast augmentation versus knee arthroplasty) we did not perform a meta-analysis.No serious adverse events were reported to be associated with the use of liposomal bupivacaine and none of the five studies reported withdrawals due to drug-related adverse events (moderate quality evidence).One study reported a lower mean pain score at 12 hours associated with liposomal bupivacaine compared to bupivacaine hydrochloride, but not at 24, 48 or 72 hours postoperatively (very low quality evidence).Two studies (382 participants) reported a longer time to first postoperative opioid dose compared to placebo (low quality evidence).Two studies (325 participants) reported the total postoperative opioid consumption over the first 72 hours: one study reported a lower cumulative opioid consumption for liposomal bupivacaine compared to placebo (very low quality evidence); one study reported no difference compared to bupivacaine hydrochloride (very low quality evidence).Three studies (492 participants) reported the percentage of participants not requiring postoperative opioids over initial 72 hours following surgery. One of the two studies comparing liposomal bupivacaine to placebo demonstrated a higher number of participants receiving liposomal bupivacaine did not require postoperative opioids (very low quality evidence). The other two studies, one versus placebo and one versus bupivacaine hydrochloride, found no difference in opioid requirement (very low quality evidence). Due to significant heterogeneity between the studies (I2 = 92%) we did not pool the results.All the included studies reported adverse events within 30 days of surgery, with nausea, constipation and vomiting being the most common. Of the five parallel-arm studies, none performed or reported health economic assessments or patient-reported outcomes other than pain.Using GRADE, the quality of evidence ranged from moderate to very low. The major limitation was the sparseness of data for outcomes of interest. In addition, a number of studies had a high risk of bias resulting in further downgrading. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Liposomal bupivacaine at the surgical site does appear to reduce postoperative pain compared to placebo, however, at present the limited evidence does not demonstrate superiority to bupivacaine hydrochloride. There were no reported drug-related serious adverse events and no study withdrawals due to drug-related adverse events. Overall due to the low quality and volume of evidence our confidence in the effect estimate is limited and the true effect may be substantially different from our estimate.

Lateral osteophytes do not represent a contraindication to medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a 15-year follow-up.

PURPOSE: Lateral osteophytes have been reported to be associated with lateral compartment disease and as such it is unclear whether medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty should be performed if these are present. METHODS: Using the OARSI classification system, 0 (no osteophyte) to 3 (large osteophyte), radiographs from a series of cemented meniscal-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty implanted in the setting of full-thickness lateral cartilage where lateral osteophytes were not considered a contraindication were identified and factors associated with the presence and size of lateral osteophytes, and their impact on clinical outcomes and implant survival were assessed. RESULTS: Pre-operative radiographs from 458 knees (392 patients), independently followed up for a mean 10.5 years (range 5.3-16.6), were assessed. Lateral osteophytes were present in 62 % of knees with 18 % scored as Grade 3. Inter-observer reliability was good (kappa = 0.70). The presence and size of lateral osteophytes was associated with younger age at joint replacement (p = 0.01) and increasing BMI (p = 0.01). No association was seen with gender, pre-operative status, assessed using the Oxford Knee Score (OKS), American Knee Society (AKSS) Objective or Functional Score, Tegner activity score, or size of medial tibial lesion. Subgroup analysis of Grade 3 Osteophytes revealed that these were associated with a greater degree of macroscopic ACL damage. At 10 years there was no difference in function (n.s.), and at 15 years no difference in implant survival or mechanism of failure between groups (n.s.). Subgroup analysis of Grade 3 osteophytes found no significant difference in functional outcome at 10 years or implant survival at 15 years. CONCLUSION: The presence of lateral osteophytes is not a contraindication to medial meniscal-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. The clinical relevance of this study is that it highlights the importance of an appropriate pre-operative assessment of the lateral compartment as in the setting of full-thickness cartilage at operation lateral osteophytes do not compromise long-term functional outcome or implant survival. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

Evidence-Based Indications for Mobile-Bearing Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty in a Consecutive Cohort of Thousand Knees.

BACKGROUND: The indications for unicompartmental knee arthroplasty remain controversial. Previously recommended contraindications include the following: age under 60 years, weight 180 lb (82 kg) or over, patients undertaking heavy labor, chondrocalcinosis, and exposed bone in the patellofemoral joint. This study explores whether these contraindications are valid in mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. METHODS: Using a prospective series of 1000 consecutive medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasties in which the reported contraindications were not applied, the functional outcome and survival in patients with or without contraindications were compared. RESULTS: Of the 1000 consecutive unicompartmental knee arthroplasties (818 patients), 68% (678 knees) would be considered contraindicated based on published contraindications. At a mean follow-up of 10 years (5-17), there was no difference in American Knee Society (AKS) Objective Scores (P = .05) or Oxford Knee Score (P = .08) between groups. However, knees with contraindications had significantly (P = .02) fewer poor outcomes and significantly better AKS Functional Scores (P < .001) and Tegner Activity Scores (P < .001). At 15 years, no difference in implant survival (P = .33) was observed. The 3% of unicompartmental knee arthroplasties performed in young men (age <60) weighing 180 lb or over with high activity levels, who have been reported to have poor outcomes after fixed-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, had significantly better AKS Functional Scores (P < .001), Oxford Knee Score (P = .01), and Tegner Activity Score (P < .001) at 10 years. No difference in AKS Objective Scores (P = .54) at 10 years or implant survival at 15 years (P = .75) was seen. CONCLUSION: This large case series provides evidence that patients with the previously reported contraindications do as well as, or even better than, those without contraindications. Therefore these contraindications should not apply to mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.

The Interaction of Caseload and Usage in Determining Outcomes of Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: A Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Outcomes after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) are variable and influenced by caseload (UKA/y) and usage (percentage of knee arthroplasty that are UKA), which relates to indications. This meta-analysis assesses the relative importance of these factors. METHODS: MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), and Web of Science (ISI) were searched for consecutive series of cemented Phase 3 Oxford medial UKA. The primary outcome was revision rate/100 observed component years (% pa) with subgroup analysis based on caseload and usage. RESULTS: Forty-six studies (12,520 knees) with an annual revision-rate ranging from 0% to 4.35% pa, mean 1.21% pa (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.97-1.47), were identified. In series with mean follow-up of 10-years, the revision-rate was 0.63% pa (95% CI, 0.46-0.83), equating to a 94% (95% CI, 92%-95%) 10-year survival. Aseptic loosening, lateral arthritis, bearing dislocation, and unexplained pain were the predominant failure mechanisms with revision for patellofemoral problems and polyethylene wear exceedingly rare. The lowest revision-rates were achieved with caseload >24 UKA/y (0.88% pa; 95% CI, 0.63-1.61) and usage >30% (0.69% pa; 95% CI, 0.50-0.90). Usage was more important than caseload; with high usage (≥20%), the revision-rate was low, whether the caseload was high (>12 UKA/y) or low (≤12 UKA/y; (0.94% pa; 95% CI, 0.69-1.23 and 0.85% pa; 95% CI, 0.65-1.08), respectively); with low usage (<20%), the revision-rate was high, whether the caseload was high or low (1.58% pa; 95% CI, 0.57-3.05 and 1.76% pa; 95% CI, 1.21-2.41, respectively). CONCLUSION: To achieve optimum results, surgeons, whether high or low caseload, should adhere to the recommended indications such that ≥20%, or ideally >30% of their knee arthroplasties are UKA. If they do this, then they can expect to achieve results similar to those of the long-term series, which all had high usage (>20%) and an average 10-year survival of 94%.

Liposomal bupivacaine peripheral nerve block for the management of postoperative pain.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative pain remains a significant issue with poor perioperative pain management associated with an increased risk of morbidity and mortality. Liposomal bupivacaine is an analgesic consisting of bupivacaine hydrochloride encapsulated within multiple, non-concentric lipid bi-layers offering a novel method of sustained release. OBJECTIVES: To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of liposomal bupivacaine infiltration peripheral nerve block for the management of postoperative pain. SEARCH METHODS: We identified randomised trials of liposomal bupivacaine peripheral nerve block for the management of postoperative pain. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2016, Issue 1), Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to January Week 1 2016), Ovid MEDLINE In-Process (14 January 2016), EMBASE (1974 to 13 January 2016), ISI Web of Science (1945 to 14 January 2016), and reference lists of retrieved articles. We sought unpublished studies from Internet sources, and searched clinical trials databases for ongoing trials. The date of the most recent search was 15 January 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised, double-blind, placebo- or active-controlled clinical trials of a single dose of liposomal bupivacaine administered as a peripheral nerve block in adults aged 18 years or over undergoing elective surgery at any surgical site. We included trials if they had at least two comparison groups for liposomal bupivacaine peripheral nerve block compared with placebo or other types of analgesia. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently considered trials for inclusion in the review, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. We performed analyses using standard statistical techniques as described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, using Review Manager 5. We planned to perform a meta-analysis, however there were insufficient data to ensure a clinically meaningful answer; as such we have produced a 'Summary of findings' table in a narrative format, and where possible we assessed the evidence using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). MAIN RESULTS: We identified seven studies that met inclusion criteria for this review. Three were recorded as completed (or terminated) but no results were published. Of the remaining four studies (299 participants): two investigated liposomal bupivacaine transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block, one liposomal bupivacaine dorsal penile nerve block, and one ankle block. The study investigating liposomal bupivacaine ankle block was a Phase II dose-escalating/de-escalating trial presenting pooled data that we could not use in our analysis.The studies did not report our primary outcome, cumulative pain score between 0 and 72 hours, and secondary outcomes, mean pain score at 12, 24, 48, 72, or 96 hours. One study reported no difference in mean pain score during the first, second, and third postoperative 24-hour periods in participants receiving liposomal bupivacaine TAP block compared to no TAP block. Two studies, both in people undergoing laparoscopic surgery under TAP block, investigated cumulative postoperative opioid dose, reported opposing findings. One found a lower cumulative opioid consumption between 0 and 72 hours compared to bupivacaine hydrochloride TAP block and one found no difference during the first, second, and third postoperative 24-hour periods compared to no TAP block. No studies reported time to first postoperative opioid or percentage not requiring opioids over the initial 72 hours. No studies reported a health economic analysis or patient-reported outcome measures (outside of pain). The review authors sought data regarding adverse events but none were available, however there were no withdrawals reported to be due to adverse events.Using GRADE, we considered the quality of evidence to be very low with any estimate of effect very uncertain and further research very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect. All studies were at high risk of bias due to their small sample size (fewer than 50 participants per arm) leading to uncertainty around effect estimates. Additionally, inconsistency of results and sparseness of data resulted in further downgrading of the quality of the data. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: A lack of evidence has prevented an assessment of the efficacy of liposomal bupivacaine administered as a peripheral nerve block. At present there is a lack of data to support or refute the use of liposomal bupivacaine administered as a peripheral nerve block for the management of postoperative pain. Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.

One-stage versus two-stage exchange arthroplasty for infected total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: Infection complicating total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has serious implications. Traditionally the debate on whether one- or two-stage exchange arthroplasty is the optimum management of infected TKA has favoured two-stage procedures; however, a paradigm shift in opinion is emerging. This study aimed to establish whether current evidence supports one-stage revision for managing infected TKA based on reinfection rates and functional outcomes post-surgery. METHODS: MEDLINE/PubMed and CENTRAL databases were reviewed for studies that compared one- and two-stage exchange arthroplasty TKA in more than ten patients with a minimum 2-year follow-up. RESULTS: From an initial sample of 796, five cohort studies with a total of 231 patients (46 single-stage/185 two-stage; median patient age 66 years, range 61-71 years) met inclusion criteria. Overall, there were no significant differences in risk of reinfection following one- or two-stage exchange arthroplasty (OR -0.06, 95 % confidence interval -0.13, 0.01). Subgroup analysis revealed that in studies published since 2000, one-stage procedures have a significantly lower reinfection rate. One study investigated functional outcomes and reported that one-stage surgery was associated with superior functional outcomes. Scarcity of data, inconsistent study designs, surgical technique and antibiotic regime disparities limit recommendations that can be made. CONCLUSION: Recent studies suggest one-stage exchange arthroplasty may provide superior outcomes, including lower reinfection rates and superior function, in select patients. Clinically, for some patients, one-stage exchange arthroplasty may represent optimum treatment; however, patient selection criteria and key components of surgical and post-operative anti-microbial management remain to be defined. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Clinical outcome after UKA and HTO in ACL deficiency: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: In the treatment of medial osteoarthritis secondary to anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury there is no consensus about optimum treatment, with both high tibial osteotomy (HTO) and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) being viable options. The aim of this review was to compare the outcomes of these treatments, both with or without ACL reconstruction. METHODS: EMBASE, MEDLINE and the Clinical Trials Registers were searched to identify relevant studies. Studies meeting pre-defined inclusion criteria were assessed independently by two researchers for methodological quality and data extracted. RESULTS: Twenty-six studies involving 771 patients were identified for inclusion. No randomized controlled trials were identified. Seventeen studies reported outcomes following HTO and nine studies reported outcomes following UKA. HTO patients were significantly younger than those receiving UKA, and ACL reconstruction patients were younger than non-reconstructed patients. Treatment with HTO ACL reconstruction had the lowest revision rate (0.62/100 observed component years) but the highest rate of complications (4.61/100 observed component years). Too little data were available to test for differences in outcome between different surgical techniques or prosthesis designs. CONCLUSIONS: Limited conclusions about the optimum treatment can be made due to the absence of controlled trials. In patients treated with HTO ACL reconstruction, the high complication rate likely outweighs its minimally superior survival. Outcomes following UKA ACL reconstruction are similar to outcomes for UKA in the ACL intact knee without any increase in complications. As such in patients meeting indications for UKA, UKA ACL reconstruction should be performed with further work required to identify the optimum treatment in other patient groups. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

Patient-Reported Outcome Measure for Early Postoperative Recovery Following Lower Limb Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Lower limb arthroplasty is an effective surgical treatment option for patients with moderate to severe arthritis who have not responded to medical management. However, surgical interventions can lead to postoperative consequences such as limited mobility, pain, and infection. Consequently, improving postoperative recovery holds significant benefits for patients, health care professionals, and health care payers. The purpose of this review is to determine if any recovery tools exist that can effectively measure early postoperative recovery after hip or knee arthroplasty. METHODS: The following databases were searched; PubMed (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), Medline (Ovid), Web of Science (ISI Web of Knowledge), PsycINFO, Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts, Cochrane library, and SCOPUS. We restricted our search to English language articles and adult respondents. Data were extracted by 2 independent reviewers using a proforma spreadsheet, and existing quality criteria were applied. RESULTS: Our literature search identified 23 articles relating to development, assessment, and validation of 15 tools. Not all instruments demonstrated the same levels of quality. None of the tools found were specific to both the orthopedic arthroplasty population and early recovery periods. CONCLUSION: At the present time, there are no fully validated tools to assess early postoperative recovery during the first week following lower limb arthroplasty. A brief, easy-to-complete, reliable patient-reported tool could be of great use. It could not only aid in assessment of recovery but could also evaluate the efficacy of perioperative interventions such as drugs or surgical technique and provide a foundation for evidence-based care.

Patient-relevant outcomes following elective, aseptic revision knee arthroplasty: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this systematic review was to summarise the evidence for the clinical effectiveness of revision knee arthroplasty (rKA) compared to non-operative treatment for the management of patients with elective, aseptic causes for a failed knee arthroplasty. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, AMED and PsychINFO were searched from inception to 1st December 2020 for studies on patients considering elective, aseptic rKA. Patient-relevant outcomes (PROs) were defined as implant survivorship, joint function, quality of life (QoL), complications and hospital admission impact. RESULTS: No studies compared elective, aseptic rKA to non-operative management. Forty uncontrolled studies reported on PROs following elective, aseptic rKA (434434 rKA). Pooled estimates for implant survivorship were: 95.5% (95% CI 93.2-97.7%) at 1 year [seven studies (5524 rKA)], 90.8% (95% CI 87.6-94.0%) at 5 years [13 studies (5754 rKA)], 87.4% (95% CI 81.7-93.1%) at 10 years [nine studies (2188 rKA)], and 83.2% (95% CI 76.7-89.7%) at 15 years [two studies (452 rKA)]. Twelve studies (2382 rKA) reported joint function and/or QoL: all found large improvements from baseline to follow-up. Mortality rates were low (0.16% to 2% within 1 year) [four studies (353064 rKA)]. Post-operative complications were common (9.1 to 37.2% at 90 days). CONCLUSION: Higher-quality evidence is needed to support patients with decision-making in elective, aseptic rKA. This should include studies comparing operative and non-operative management. Implant survivorship following elective, aseptic rKA was ~ 96% at 1 year, ~ 91% at 5 years and ~ 87% at 10 years. Early complications were common after elective, aseptic rKA and the rates summarised here can be shared with patients during informed consent. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020196922.

Efficacy of Liposomal Bupivacaine and Bupivacaine Hydrochloride vs Bupivacaine Hydrochloride Alone as a Periarticular Anesthetic for Patients Undergoing Knee Replacement: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: More than half of patients who undergo knee replacement surgery report substantial acute postoperative pain. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of periarticular liposomal bupivacaine for recovery and pain management after knee replacement. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter, patient-blinded, pragmatic, randomized clinical superiority trial involved 533 participants at 11 institutions within the National Health Service in England. Adults undergoing primary unilateral knee replacement for symptomatic end-stage osteoarthritis were enrolled between March 29, 2018, and February 29, 2020, and followed up for 1 year after surgery. Follow-up was completed March 1, 2021. A per-protocol analysis for each coprimary outcome was performed in addition to the main intention-to-treat analysis. Interventions: Two hundred sixty-six milligrams of liposomal bupivacaine admixed with 100 mg of bupivacaine hydrochloride compared with 100 mg of bupivacaine hydrochloride alone (control) administered by periarticular injection at the time of surgery. Main Outcome and Measures: The coprimary outcomes were Quality of Recovery 40 (QoR-40) score at 72 hours and pain visual analog scale (VAS) score area under the curve (AUC) from 6 to 72 hours. Secondary outcomes included QoR-40 and mean pain VAS at days 0 (evening of surgery), 1, 2, and 3; cumulative opioid consumption for 72 hours; functional outcomes and quality of life at 6 weeks, 6 months, and 1 year; and cost-effectiveness for 1 year. Adverse events and serious adverse events up to 12 months after randomization were also assessed. Results: Among the 533 participants included in the analysis, the mean (SD) age was 69.0 (9.7) years; 287 patients were women (53.8%) and 246 were men (46.2%). Baseline characteristics were balanced between study groups. There was no difference between the liposomal bupivacaine and control groups in QoR-40 score at 72 hours (adjusted mean difference, 0.54 [97.5% CI, -2.05 to 3.13]; P = .64) or the pain VAS score AUC at 6 to 72 hours (-21.5 [97.5% CI, -46.8 to 3.8]; P = .06). Analyses of pain VAS and QoR-40 scores demonstrated only 1 statistically significant difference, with the liposomal bupivacaine arm having lower pain scores the evening of surgery (adjusted difference -0.54 [97.5% CI, -1.07 to -0.02]; P = .02). No difference in cumulative opioid consumption and functional outcomes was detected. Liposomal bupivacaine was not cost-effective compared with the control treatment. No difference in adverse or serious adverse events was found between the liposomal bupivacaine and control groups. Conclusions and Relevance: This study found no difference in postoperative recovery or pain associated with the use of periarticular liposomal bupivacaine compared with bupivacaine hydrochloride alone in patients who underwent knee replacement surgery. Trial Registration: isrctn.com Identifier: ISRCTN54191675.