The experience of patients undergoing aseptic, elective revision knee joint replacement surgery: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Around 6,000 revision knee replacement procedures are performed in the United Kingdom each year. Three-quarters of procedures are for aseptic, elective reasons, such as progressive osteoarthritis, prosthesis loosening/wear, or instability. Our understanding of how we can best support these patients undergoing revision knee replacement procedures is limited. This study aimed to explore patients' experiences of having a problematic knee replacement and the impact of undergoing knee revision surgery for aseptic, elective reasons. METHODS: Qualitative semi structured interviews with 15 patients (8 women, 7 men; mean age 70 years: range 54-81) who had undergone revision knee surgery for a range of aseptic, elective indications in the last 12 months at an NHS Major Revision Knee Centre. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, de-identified and analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: We developed six themes: Soldiering on; The challenge of navigating the health system; I am the expert in my own knee; Shift in what I expected from surgery; I am not the person I used to be; Lingering uncertainty. CONCLUSIONS: Living with a problematic knee replacement and undergoing knee revision surgery has significant impact on all aspects of patients' lives. Our findings highlight the need for patients with problematic knee replacements to be supported to access care and assessment, and for long-term psychological and rehabilitation support before and after revision surgery.

Epidemiology of revision hip replacement surgery in the UK over the past 15 years-an analysis from the National Joint Registry.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate trends in the incidence rate and main indication for revision hip replacement (rHR) over the past 15 years in the UK. DESIGN: Repeated national cross-sectional study from 2006 to 2020. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: rHR procedures were identified from the National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man and the States of Guernsey. Population statistics were obtained from the Office for National Statistics. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Crude incidence rates of rHR. RESULTS: The incidence rate of rHR doubled from 11 per 100 000 adults in 2006 (95% CI 10.7 to 11.3) to a peak of 22 per 100 000 adults (95% CI 22 to 23) in 2012, before falling to 17 per 100 000 adults in 2019 (95% CI 16 to 17) (24.5% decrease from peak). The incidence rate of rHR reduced by 39% in 2020 compared with 2019 (during the COVID-19 pandemic). The most frequent indications for rHR between 2006 and 2019 were loosening/lysis (27.8%), unexplained pain (15.1%) and dislocation/instability (14.7%). There were incremental increases in the annual number and incidence rates of rHR for fracture, infection, dislocation/instability and a decrease in rHR for aseptic loosening/lysis. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence rate of rHR doubled from 2006 to 2012, likely due to high early failure rates of metal-on-metal hip replacements. The incidence of rHR then decreased by approximately 25% from 2012 to 2019, followed by a large decrease during the COVID-19 pandemic. The decrease in the number of rHR performed for aseptic loosening/lysis may reflect improved wear and implant longevity. Increased healthcare resource will be required to care for the increasing numbers of patients undergoing rHR for fracture and infection.

Overcoming floor and ceiling effects in knee arthroplasty outcome measurement.

Aims: To map the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) and High Activity Arthroplasty Score (HAAS) items to a common scale, and to investigate the psychometric properties of this new scale for the measurement of knee health. Methods: Patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) data measuring knee health were obtained from the NHS PROMs dataset and Total or Partial Knee Arthroplasty Trial (TOPKAT). Assumptions for common scale modelling were tested. A graded response model (fitted to OKS item responses in the NHS PROMs dataset) was used as an anchor to calibrate paired HAAS items from the TOPKAT dataset. Information curves for the combined OKS-HAAS model were plotted. Bland-Altman analysis was used to compare common scale scores derived from OKS and HAAS items. A conversion table was developed to map between HAAS, OKS, and the common scale. Results: We included 3,329 response sets from 528 patients undergoing knee arthroplasty. These generally met the assumptions of unidimensionality, monotonicity, local independence, and measurement invariance. The HAAS items provided more information than OKS items at high levels of knee health. Combining both instruments resulted in higher test-level information than either instrument alone. The mean error between common scale scores derived from the OKS and HAAS was 0.29 logits. Conclusion: The common scale allowed more precise measurement of knee health than use of either the OKS or HAAS individually. These techniques for mapping PROM instruments may be useful for the standardization of outcome reporting, and pooling results across studies that use either PROM in individual-patient meta-analysis.

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.

Patient-Relevant Outcomes Following First Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty, by Diagnosis: An Analysis of Implant Survivorship, Mortality, Serious Medical Complications, and Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Utilizing the National Joint Registry Data Set.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to investigate patient-relevant outcomes following first revision total knee arthroplasties (rTKAs) performed for different indications. METHODS: This population-based cohort study utilized data from the United Kingdom National Joint Registry, Hospital Episode Statistics Admitted Patient Care, National Health Service Patient-Reported Outcome Measures, and the Civil Registrations of Death. Patients undergoing a first rTKA between January 1, 2009, and June 30, 2019, were included in our data set. Patient-relevant outcomes included implant survivorship (up to 11 years postoperatively), mortality and serious medical complications (up to 90 days postoperatively), and patient-reported outcome measures (at 6 months postoperatively). RESULTS: A total of 24,540 first rTKAs were analyzed. The patient population was 54% female and 62% White, with a mean age at the first rTKA of 69 years. At 2 years postoperatively, the cumulative incidence of re-revision surgery ranged from 2.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.9% to 3.4%) following rTKA for progressive arthritis to 16.3% (95% CI, 15.2% to 17.4%) following rTKA for infection. The mortality rate at 90 days was highest following rTKA for fracture (3.6% [95% CI, 2.5% to 5.1%]) and for infection (1.8% [95% CI, 1.5% to 2.2%]) but was <0.5% for other indications. The rate of serious medical complications requiring hospital admission within 90 days was highest for patients treated for fracture (21.8% [95% CI, 17.9% to 26.3%]) or infection (12.5% [95% CI, 11.2% to 13.9%]) and was lowest for those treated for progressive arthritis (4.3% [95% CI, 3.3% to 5.5%]). Patients who underwent rTKA for stiffness or unexplained pain had some of the poorest postoperative joint function (mean Oxford Knee Score, 24 and 25 points, respectively) and had the lowest proportion of responders (48% and 55%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: This study found large differences in patient-relevant outcomes among different indications for first rTKA. The rate of complications was highest following rTKA for fracture or infection. Although rTKA resulted in large improvements in joint function for most patients, those who underwent surgery for stiffness and unexplained pain had worse outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

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.

Item response theory assumptions were adequately met by the Oxford hip and knee scores.

OBJECTIVES: To develop item response theory (IRT) models for the Oxford hip and knee scores which convert patient responses into continuous scores with quantifiable precision and provide these as web applications for efficient score conversion. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Data from the National Health Service patient-reported outcome measures program were used to test the assumptions of IRT (unidimensionality, monotonicity, local independence, and measurement invariance) before fitting models to preoperative response patterns obtained from patients undergoing primary elective hip or knee arthroplasty. The hip and knee datasets contained 321,147 and 355,249 patients, respectively. RESULTS: Scree plots, Kaiser criterion analyses, and confirmatory factor analyses confirmed unidimensionality and Mokken analysis confirmed monotonicity of both scales. In each scale, all item pairs shared a residual correlation of ≤ 0.20. At the test level, both scales showed measurement invariance by age and gender. Both scales provide precise measurement in preoperative settings but demonstrate poorer precision and ceiling effects in postoperative settings. CONCLUSION: We provide IRT parameters and web applications that can convert Oxford Hip Score or Oxford Knee Score response sets into continuous measurements and quantify individual measurement error. These can be used in sensitivity analyses or to administer truncated and individualized computerized adaptive tests.

Item response theory may account for unequal item weighting and individual-level measurement error in trials that use PROMs: a psychometric sensitivity analysis of the TOPKAT trial.

OBJECTIVES: To apply item response theory as a framework for studying measurement error in superiority trials which use patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). METHODS: We reanalyzed data from the The Total or Partial Knee Arthroplasty Trial, which compared the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) responses of patients undergoing partial or total knee replacement, using traditional sum-scoring, after accounting for OKS item characteristics with expected a posteriori (EAP) scoring, and after accounting for individual-level measurement error with plausible value imputation (PVI). We compared the marginalized mean scores of each group at baseline, 2 months, and yearly for 5 years. We used registry data to estimate the minimal important difference (MID) of OKS scores with sum-scoring and EAP scoring. RESULTS: With sum-scoring, we found statistically significant differences in mean OKS score at 2 months (P = 0.030) and 1 year (P = 0.030). EAP scores produced slightly different results, with statistically significant differences at 1 year (P = 0.041) and 3 years (P = 0.043). With PVI, there were no statistically significant differences. CONCLUSION: Psychometric sensitivity analyses can be readily performed for superiority trials using PROMs and may aid the interpretation of results.

Re-revision Knee Arthroplasty in a Tertiary Center: Infection and Multiple Previous Surgeries Were Associated With Poor Early Clinical and Functional Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of re-revision knee arthroplasty (re-revision KA) is increasing and associated with high complication and failure rates. The aim of this study was to investigate re-revision rates, complications, and patient-reported outcomes following re-revision KA and factors associated with poor outcome. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of 206 patients (250 knees) undergoing re-revision KA at a major revision center from 2015 to 2018. The mean follow-up was 26 months (range, 0 to 61) and mean age at re-revision KA was 69 years (range, 31 to 91 years). The main indications for surgery were prosthetic joint infection (PJI) (n = 171/250, 68.4%) and aseptic loosening (n = 25/250, 10.0%). We compared re-revision rates, joint function, and complications for aseptic and infective indications. Logistic regressions were performed to identify risk factors for further reoperation. RESULTS: The estimated re-revision rates at 2 years were 28.7% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 22.7-35.9) and at 4 years were 42.0% (95% CI: 32.8-52.6). Mean Oxford Knee Score was 26 points (range, 1 to 48). Mean EuroQoL-5D-5L utility was 0.539 (range, -0.511 to 1.000). Multivariable analyses demonstrated that PJI (Odds Ratio [OR] 2.39, 95% CI 1.06-5.40, P = .036), greater number of previous surgeries (OR 1.18, 95% CI 1.04-1.33, P = .008), and higher Elixhauser score (OR 1.06, 95% CI 1.01-1.13, P = .045) were independently associated to further surgery. CONCLUSION: Re-revision KA carried a high risk of early failure. Multiple revised joints and patients with more comorbidities had worse function. Patients undergoing re-revision KA for PJI should be counseled to expect higher failure rates and complications than patients who have aseptic indications.

Early patient-reported outcomes from primary hip and knee arthroplasty have improved over the past seven years : an analysis of the NHS PROMs dataset.

AIMS: Routinely collected patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have been useful to quantify and quality-assess provision of total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in the UK for the past decade. This study aimed to explore whether the outcome following primary THA and TKA had improved over the past seven years. METHODS: Secondary data analysis of 277,430 primary THAs and 308,007 primary TKAs from the NHS PROMs programme was undertaken. Outcome measures were: postoperative Oxford Hip/Knee Score (OHS/OKS); proportion of patients achieving a clinically important improvement in joint function (responders); quality of life; patient satisfaction; perceived success; and complication rates. Outcome measures were compared based on year of surgery using multiple linear and logistic regression models. RESULTS: For primary THA, multiple linear regression modelling found that more recent year of surgery was associated with higher postoperative OHS (unstandardized coefficient (B) 0.15 points (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 0.17); p < 0.001) and higher EuroQol five-dimension index (EQ-5D) utility (B 0.002 (95% CI 0.001 to 0.002); p < 0.001). The odds of being a responder (odds ratio (OR) 1.02 (95% CI 1.02 to 1.03); p < 0.001) and patient satisfaction (OR 1.02 (95% CI 1.01 to 1.03); p < 0.001) increased with year of surgery, while the odds of any complication reduced (OR 0.97 (95% CI 0.97 to 0.98); p < 0.001). No trend was found for perceived success (p = 0.555). For primary TKA, multiple linear regression modelling found that more recent year of surgery was associated with higher postoperative OKS (B 0.21 points (95% CI 0.19 to 0.22); p < 0.001) and higher EQ-5D utility (B 0.002 (95% CI 0.002 to 0.003); p < 0.001). The odds of being a responder (OR 1.04 (95% CI 1.03 to 1.04); p < 0.001), perceived success (OR 1.02 (95% CI 1.01 to 1.02); p < 0.001), and patient satisfaction (OR 1.02 (95% CI 1.01 to 1.02); p < 0.001) all increased with year of surgery, while the odds of any complication reduced (OR 0.97 (95% CI 0.97 to 0.97); p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Nearly all patient-reported outcomes following primary THA/TKA improved by a small amount over the past seven years. Due to the high proportion of patients achieving good outcomes, PROMs following THA and TKA may need to focus on better discrimination of patients achieving high scores to be able to continue to measure improvement in outcomes. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(6):687-695.

Implant survivorship, functional outcomes and complications with the use of rotating hinge knee implants: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: With more complex primary and revision total knee arthroplasty procedures there is often the need to use more constrained prostheses. This study aims to investigate patient-relevant outcomes following primary and revision rotating-hinged total knee arthroplasty. METHODS: Electronic searches were performed using four databases from their date of inception to January 2021. Relevant studies were identified, with data extracted and analysed using PRIMSA guidelines. RESULTS: Nineteen studies were included, producing a cohort of 568 primary and 413 revision rotating hinge total knee arthroplasties (TKAs). Survival was assessed at 1-, 5-, and 10-year post-implantation. Sensitivity analyses based on person-time incidence ratios (PTIRs) were prespecified for studies not reporting survival at these timepoints. From the primary hinge TKA cohort, the median survival at 1 year was 93.4% and at 10 years it was 87%. The PTIR at long-term follow-up of this primary cohort was 1.07 (95% CI 0.4-1.7) per 100 person-years. From the revision hinge TKA cohort, the median survival at 1 year was 79.6%, and at 10 years it was 65.1%. The PTIR at long term-follow-up of this revision cohort was 1.55 (95% CI 0.9-2.3) per 100 person-years. Post-operative flexion range of motion (ROM) was 110° for primary hinge TKA and 103° for revision hinge TKA. Compared with baseline, the Knee Society Score (KSS) and Knee Society Function Score (KSFS) improved for both groups post-operatively (primary: KSS 17 to 86, KSFS 28 to 58; revision: KSS 37 to 82, KSFS 34 to 61). CONCLUSION: The quality of the evidence for patient-relevant outcomes following hinged knee arthroplasty was limited. While there is the potential for high early revision rates, where successful, large functional benefits may be achieved.

Minimal important changes and differences were estimated for Oxford hip and knee scores following primary and revision arthroplasty.

OBJECTIVES: To create estimates for clinically meaningful changes and differences in pain and joint function for the Oxford Hip and Knee Scores (OHS/OKS) in primary and revision joint replacement. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: 694,487 primary and revision joint replacement procedures were analyzed from the NHS PROMs dataset between 2012-2020. Minimal important changes (MIC) and differences (MID) were calculated using distribution and anchor-based methods (including receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve and predictive-modelling techniques). RESULTS: For comparison of two or more groups (such as in a clinic trial), MID estimates were ∼5 points. For cohort studies investigating changes over time in a single group of patients, MICgroup estimates were 12.4 points (primary hip replacement), 8.6 points (revision hip replacement), 10.5 points (primary knee replacement) and 9.4 points (revision knee replacement). For studies investigating changes over time at the individual patient level, MICadjusted estimates were ∼8 points, ∼6 points, ∼7 points and ∼6 points respectively. CONCLUSION: This study has calculated contemporary estimates of clinically important changes and differences for the OHS/OKS for primary and revision hip and knee replacement. These estimates can be used to inform sample size calculations and to interpret changes in joint function over time and differences between groups.

Self-Reported Neurotoxic Symptoms in Hip Arthroplasty Patients With Highly Elevated Blood Cobalt: A Case-Control Study.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to investigate the prevalence of self-reported neurotoxicity and cognitive defects in hip replacement patients with markedly raised blood cobalt. METHODS: Case group comprised 53 patients with metal-on-metal (MoM) implants and a history of blood Co ≥20 µg/L for a median of 3 years (interquartile range, 2-5 years). The control group comprised 53 patients with ceramic-on-ceramic prostheses and blood Co <1 µg/L. Median age was 67 years (interquartile range, 60-74 years). The participants completed the Neurotoxic Symptom Checklist-60, Diabetic Neuropathy Score, Douleur Neuropathique-10, and Systemic Symptom Checklist, and underwent the Mini-Mental State Examination. RESULTS: The MoM and ceramic-on-ceramic groups were compared, the results were as follows: Neurotoxic Symptom Checklist-60 (median): cognitive defects (2.0 versus 1.9; P = 0.002), chest complaints (1.3 versus 1.3; P = 0.042), balance disturbances (1.3 versus 1.0; P < 0.001), sleep disturbances (2.7 versus 2.0; P = 0.004), mood disorders (2.0 versus 1.5; P = 0.001), sensorimotor disorders (1.6 versus 1.2; P < 0.001), physical complaints (2.0 versus 1.4; P = 0.009), fatigue (2.0 versus 1.6; P = 0.001), and total score (108 versus 90; P < 0.001); abnormal Diabetic Neuropathy Score/Douleur Neuropathique-10 (%): 60.3/13.2 versus 24.5/1.9 (P < 0.001/P = 0.028). Systemic Symptom Checklist (in percent): feeling cold (37.7 versus 17; P = 0.01), weight gain (18.9 versus 1.9; P = 0.008), metallic taste (26.4 versus 3.8; P = 0.002), worsening eyesight (37.7 versus 15.1; P = 0.008) and hearing (24.5 versus 7.5; 0.032), ankle swelling (32.1 versus 7.5; P = 0.002), shortness of breath on exertion (9.4 versus 5.7; P = 0.015), and generalized rash (28.3 versus 7.5; P = 0.01); and Mini-Mental State Examination (median): 29 versus 30 (P = 0.017). Patients in the MoM group were aware of their high cobalt levels and displayed a higher tendency to overreport symptoms (P < 0.001), which could have contributed to the higher scores. CONCLUSIONS: Frequency of reporting a number of symptoms was markedly higher in MoM patients, but clinically significant neurotoxicity was not observed (possibly due to the short exposure to elevated cobalt). Patients with repeated blood Co ≥20 µg/L measurements should be questioned about possible systemic health complaints at follow-up.

Patient-reported outcome measures following revision knee replacement: a review of PROM instrument utilisation and measurement properties using the COSMIN checklist.

OBJECTIVES: To identify: (1) patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) used to evaluate symptoms, health status or quality of life following discretionary revision (or re-revision) knee joint replacement, and (2) validated joint-specific PROMs, their measurement properties and quality of evidence. DESIGN: (1) Scoping review; (2) systematic review following the COnsensus-based Standards for selection of health status Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, AMED and PsycINFO were searched from inception to 1 July 2020 using the Oxford PROM filter unlimited by publication date or language. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Studies reporting on the development, validation or outcome of a joint-specific PROM for revision knee joint replacement were included. RESULTS: 51 studies reported PROM outcomes using eight joint-specific PROMs. 27 out of 51 studies (52.9%) were published within the last 5 years. PROM development was rated 'inadequate' for each of the eight PROMs studied. Validation studies were available for only three joint-specific PROMs: Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Lower Extremity Activity Scale (LEAS) and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC). 25 out of 27 (92.6%) measurement properties were rated insufficient, indeterminate or not assessed. The quality of supporting evidence was mostly low or very low. Each of the validated PROMs was rated 'B' (potential for recommendation but require further evaluation). CONCLUSION: Joint-specific PROMs are increasingly used to report outcomes following revision knee joint replacement, but these instruments have insufficient evidence for their validity. Future research should be directed toward understanding the measurement properties of these instruments in order to inform clinical trials and observational studies evaluating the outcomes from joint-specific PROMs.

Differences in mortality and complication rates following revision knee arthroplasty performed for urgent versus elective indications.

AIMS: To compare rates of serious adverse events in patients undergoing revision knee arthroplasty with consideration of the indication for revision (urgent versus elective indications), and compare these with primary arthroplasty and re-revision arthroplasty. METHODS: Patients undergoing primary knee arthroplasty were identified in the national Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) between 1 April 1997 to 31 March 2017. Subsequent revision and re-revision arthroplasty procedures in the same patients and same knee were identified. The primary outcome was 90-day mortality and a logistic regression model was used to investigate factors associated with 90-day mortality and secondary adverse outcomes, including infection (undergoing surgery), pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, and stroke. Urgent indications for revision arthroplasty were defined as infection or fracture, and all other indications (e.g. loosening, instability, wear) were included in the elective indications cohort. RESULTS: A total of 939,021 primary knee arthroplasty procedures were included (939,021 patients), of which 40,854 underwent subsequent revision arthroplasty, and 9,100 underwent re-revision arthroplasty. Revision surgery for elective indications was associated with a 90-day rate of mortality of 0.44% (135/30,826; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.37 to 0.52) which was comparable to primary knee arthroplasty (0.46%; 4,292/939,021; 95% CI 0.44 to 0.47). Revision arthroplasty for infection was associated with a much higher mortality of 2.04% (184/9037; 95% CI 1.75 to 2.35; odds ratio (OR) 3.54; 95% CI 2.81 to 4.46), as was revision for periprosthetic fracture at 5.25% (52/991; 95% CI 3.94 to 6.82; OR 6.23; 95% CI 4.39 to 8.85). Higher rates of pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, and stroke were also observed in the infection and fracture cohort. CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing revision arthroplasty for urgent indications (infection or fracture) are at higher risk of mortality and serious adverse events in comparison to primary knee arthroplasty and revision arthroplasty for elective indications. These findings will be important for patient consent and shared decision-making and should inform service design for this patient cohort. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(10):1578-1585.

New instrumentation system for cementless mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty improves surgical performance particularly for trainees.

BACKGROUND: Mobile-bearing medial-unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (mUKA) has a documented learning curve. New instrumentation has been designed with the aim of reducing the technical challenges of this procedure. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the technical performance of mUKA using new (Microplasty) versus older (Phase III) instrumentation, performed by expert surgeons and trainees. Secondary aims were to evaluate functional outcome and mid-term survivorship. METHODS: A time-based comparative cohort study was performed between 2009 and 2015 at a high-volume centre. 273 patients (273 knees, 49.5% female) of mean age 67.8 (standard deviation 10.1) years underwent mUKA. 153 (56.0%) procedures used Microplasty instruments and 120 procedures (44.0%) used Phase III instruments. RESULTS: Non-optimal bearing usage was less frequent with Microplasty than Phase III instruments (24 knees [15.7%] versus 33 knees [27.5%], p = 0.024), with differences due to improved trainee performance. Femoral component sagittal alignment outliers were less frequent with Microplasty, but this was not statistically significant (9 knees [5.9%] versus 13 knees [10.8%], p = 0.18). Post-operative Oxford Knee Scores (OKS) were better with Microplasty (median 42 points [interquartile range 38-44]) compared to Phase III (median 39.5 points [IQR 33-44]), which was statistically significant (p = 0.023), but not clinically meaningful. The overall 5-year Kaplan-Meier (KM) survival estimate was 99.3% (95% CI 97.0-99.8%), with no differences between Microplasty and Phase III instrumentation. CONCLUSIONS: New instrumentation improved the reliability of the proximal tibial resection in trainees. Further research is warranted to investigate whether Microplasty instrumentation shortens the learning curve for medial UKA.

Patient-Reported Function and Quality of Life After Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty: An Analysis of 10,727 Patients from the NHS PROMs Program.

BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to investigate changes in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) after revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA). METHODS: A total of 10,727 patients undergoing elective rTKA were recruited from the UK National Health Service PROMs data set from 2013 to 2019. PROMs were collected at baseline and six months to assess joint function (Oxford Knee Score, OKS) and quality of life (EQ-5D). Associations with a change in the OKS (COKS) were investigated through multiple linear regression. RESULTS: The mean COKS was 12.4 (standard deviation 10.7) points. A total of 6776 of 10,329 (65.6%) patients demonstrated increase in the OKS above the minimal important change of 7.5 points. The median change in the EQ-5D utility was 0.227 (interquartile range 0.000 to 0.554). A total of 4917 of 9279 (53.0%) patients achieved a composite endpoint of improvement greater than the minimal important change for joint function and 'better' QoL as per the Paretian analysis. A total of 7477 of 10,727 (69.7%) patients reported satisfaction with rTKA. A total of 7947 of 10,727 (74.1%) patients felt surgery was a success. A total of 4888 of 10,632 (46.0%) patients reported one or more adverse events. A higher preoperative OKS was associated with a lower COKS (coefficient -0.63 [95% confidence interval -0.67 to -0.60]). Other factors associated with a lower COKS were postoperative complication(s), age under 60 years, longer duration of knee problems, patients who identified as disabled, problems in EQ-5D dimensions of anxiety/depression and self-care, comorbid conditions (circulatory problems, diabetes, and depression), and earlier year of procedure in the data set. CONCLUSION: Two-thirds of patients experienced a meaningful improvement in joint function after rTKA. However, there was a high frequency of patient-reported complications. These findings may enable better informed discussion of the risks and benefits of discretionary rTKA.

Evidence for the validity of a patient-based instrument for assessment of outcome after revision knee arthroplasty.

AIMS: To estimate the measurement properties for the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) in patients undergoing revision knee arthroplasty (responsiveness, minimal detectable change (MDC-90), minimal important change (MIC), minimal important difference (MID), internal consistency, construct validity, and interpretability). METHODS: Secondary data analysis was performed for 10,727 patients undergoing revision knee arthroplasty between 2013 to 2019 using a UK national patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) dataset. Outcome data were collected before revision and at six months postoperatively, using the OKS and EuroQol five-dimension score (EQ-5D). Measurement properties were assessed according to COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guidelines. RESULTS: A total of 9,219 patients had complete outcome data. Mean preoperative OKS was 16.7 points (SD 8.1), mean postoperative OKS 29.1 (SD 11.4), and mean change in OKS + 12.5 (SD 10.7). Median preoperative EQ-5D index was 0.260 (interquartile range (IQR) 0.055 to 0.691), median postoperative EQ-5D index 0.691 (IQR 0.516 to 0.796), and median change in EQ-5D index + 0.240 (IQR 0.000 to 0.567). Internal consistency was good with Cronbach's α 0.88 (baseline) and 0.94 (post-revision). Construct validity found a high correlation of OKS total score with EQ-5D index (r = 0.76 (baseline), r = 0.83 (post-revision), p < 0.001). The OKS was responsive with standardized effect size (SES) 1.54 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.51 to 1.57), compared to SES 0.83 (0.81 to 0.86) for the EQ-5D index. The MIC for the OKS was 7.5 points (95% CI 5.5 to 8.5) based on the optimal cut-off with specificity 0.72, sensitivity 0.60, and area under the curve 0.66. The MID for the OKS was 5.2 points. The MDC-90 was 3.9 points. The OKS did not demonstrate significant floor or ceiling effects. CONCLUSION: This study found that the OKS was a useful and valid instrument for assessment of outcome following revision knee arthroplasty. The OKS was responsive to change and demonstrated good measurement properties. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(4):627-634.