RESUMEN
Purpose: This retrospective study aimed to assess the effects of two differing revision total knee implants designs (condylar and rotating hinge) on joint line height. Method: The use of distal augmentation and pre and post revision radiographic joint line heights were compared in 19 condylar type knee replacements (Zimmer NexGen Legacy Constrained Condylar Knee - LCCK) and 40 LINK-Endo-rotating hinge knee replacements. Joint line and patellar heights were determined for each implant using four validated methods. For comparison within a group a two tailed paired Student's t-test was used, for comparison between the groups an unpaired, two tailed Student's t-test was used. A p value of less than 0.05 was deemed statistically significant. Results: In 15 of 19 NexGen revision knee replacements distal augments were used. No distal augments were used in the LINK-Endo RHK group. In both systems there was no tendency to elevate the joint line relative to the tibia. The joint line was distalised relative to the femur in the NexGen group and proximalised in the rotating hinge knee group. Measurements using antero-posterior radiographs were found to be the most reliable method of assessing joint line height when compared to lateral radiographs. Conclusion: Both revision knee implant systems adequately restored joint line height. In condylar type knee revision implants elevation of the joint line height may be avoided through the use of distal augmentation. We found AP radiographs to be the most reliable method of accurately assessing joint line height.
RESUMEN
Background: This study compares the outcomes of patients undergoing total ankle arthroplasty (TAA) and tibiotalar fusion (ankle arthrodesis) in patients with end-stage osteoarthritis. The primary outcome assessed was Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMS); secondary outcomes included the incidence of revision, re-operation, and complications. Methods: A systematic review of studies examining the outcomes of patients undergoing TAA and/or tibiotalar fusion from 2006 to 2020 was conducted. Individual cohort studies and randomized control trials were included. Outcomes were assessed at two and five years. Results: 21 studies were included: 16 arthroplasty (2,016 patients) and 5 arthrodesis (256 patients) studies. No significant difference in PROMS was evident two years post-surgery - American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) scores were 78.8 (95% CI-confidence interval: 76.6-80.8; n=1548) and 80.8 (95% CI: 80.1-81.5; n=206 patients) for the arthroplasty and arthrodesis groups respectively. Two years post-surgery the revision rates for the arthroplasty and arthrodesis groups were similar - 3.5% (n=9) and 3.7% (n=61) respectively (OR-odds ratio: 1.05; 95% CI: 0.51-2.13); however, the re-operation rate was 2.5 times higher for the arthroplasty group (12.2%) in comparison to the arthrodesis group (5.1%) (OR: 2.57; 95% CI: 1.43-4.62). Documented complications in the arthroplasty group were half those documented in the arthrodesis group two years post-surgery (OR: 0.53; 95% CI: 0.37-0.77). No arthrodesis studies were found which contained mean 5-year follow-up data within the study period. Conclusion: Despite recent developments in TAA design, we found no clear evidence as to their superiority over ankle arthrodesis when considering patient outcomes two years postoperatively. However, this conclusion could be debatable in some types of patients such as diabetic patients, posttraumatic patients and patients with stiff hindfoot and midfoot.
RESUMEN
Introduction Lower limb arthroplasty is performed under general anaesthesia (GA) or regional anaesthesia (RA). There is increasing evidence of the surgical and anaesthetic benefits of RA. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines advise using either but highlight a lack of data comparing outcomes of RA and GA for these procedures. We conducted a service evaluation, prospectively analysing elective orthopaedic cases performed at the Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre, Oxford, UK from 19/11/2018 to 03/04/2019. We aimed to compare data on anaesthetic assessment, intra-operative parameters and patient satisfaction for RA and GA cases. Methods We selected elective patients, aged above 18, undergoing total hip, total knee or unilateral knee arthroplasties. Prospective quantitative and qualitative data were collected using two forms. Firstly, anaesthetists completed a case report recording demographic data, intra-operative details and reason for anaesthetic choice. Secondly a questionnaire gathered patient satisfaction data. This was analysed using descriptive statistics and presented in tables. Results Data for 132 patients were collected over the service evaluation period. After exclusion, 99 patients were included for final analysis; 59 underwent GA and 40 had RA. GA was used predominantly due to patient preference (74.6%). RA was used primarily due to anaesthetic preference (75%); most commonly due to speed of list and duration of operation. Overall patients had low pain scores (0.3/10) and high pre-operative anxiety levels (4.6/10) regardless of anaesthetic. Conclusion Our results show high patient satisfaction with GA and RA for lower limb arthroplasty; however, pre-operative anxiety was common for both. Patient preference and comfort influenced choice of anaesthesia, highlighting the importance of pre-operative counselling and education to facilitate shared decision making, leading to favourable post-operative outcomes.
