One-day surgery is safe and effective in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: A prospective comparative study at 1 year of follow-up.

PURPOSE: To compare the outcomes and complications of two perioperative protocols for the management of patients who underwent medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA): 24 h (1-day surgery [OS]) versus 72 h (enhanced recovery after surgery [ERAS]) of the length of hospital stay (LOS). In our hypothesis, the reduction of the LOS from 3 to 1 day did not influence the outcomes and complications. METHODS: A total of 42 patients (21 in each group) with isolated anteromedial knee osteoarthritis and meeting specific criteria were prospectively included in the study. Clinical outcomes included Knee Society Score (KSS) and Forgotten joint score while pain evaluation was performed using a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). Functional outcomes were assessed measuring the knee range of motion (ROM) while radiographic outcomes were evaluated measuring the amelioration of the varus deformity through the hip-knee-ankle angle (HKA). RESULTS: Clinical and functional outcomes did not significantly differ between the two groups. Complications occurred in 9.5% of OS and 4.7% of ERAS group patients. Significant improvements in knee ROM, VAS pain, KSS and HKA angle were observed postsurgery, with no significant differences between groups except in KSS expectations and function trends. CONCLUSION: The OS protocol is safe and effective and LOS, in a well-defined fast-track protocol, did not significantly impact clinical and functional outcomes. OS may lead to reduced hospitalisation costs and potential reductions in complications associated with prolonged stays, benefiting both patients and healthcare facilities. However, further research with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up periods is needed to confirm these findings. Early mobilisation and rehabilitation protocols are key components of successful patient recovery following UKA procedures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II.

Conical Primary Cementless Stem in Revision Hip Arthroplasty: 94 Consecutive Implantations at a Mean Follow-Up of 12.7 years.

BACKGROUND: Revision of a failed total hip arthroplasty (THA) poses technical challenges. The use of primary stems for revision can be advantageous for maintaining bone stock and reducing complications: small case series have reported promising results in the short-term to mid-term follow-up. The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term clinical and functional results and survivorship of a consecutive series of THA femoral component revisions using a conical primary cementless stem (PCS). METHODS: Ninety-four stem revisions with a preoperative Paprosky I or II defect were analyzed at an average follow-up of 12.7 ± 5.4 years. Aseptic loosening was the reason for revision in 92.5% of cases. Twenty patients were lost to follow-up. Two subgroups were created: Group 1 (n = 59) underwent isolated stem revision; Group 2 (n = 15) underwent complete THA revision. All were evaluated preoperatively and postoperatively based on the Harris Hip Score (HHS), the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Index (WOMAC) score, and the visual analog scale for pain (VAS). Residual trochanteric pain and length discrepancies were recorded. Radiographic evaluation included signs of osteolysis, subsidence, loosening, and heterotopic ossification. RESULTS: PCS survivorship was 100% at 5 years and 95.9% at 10 years. Overall, significant postoperative improvements (P < .01) were observed on the HHS (44.3 vs 86.9), WOMAC (42.8 vs 82.8), and VAS (7.0 vs 3.0). Postoperative scores on all scales were higher for Group 1 (P < .01). Three patients (4.1%) underwent further stem revision. Demarcation lines (1 mm) were found in 12 (16.2%) patients and significant heterotopic ossifications in 22 (29.7%). CONCLUSION: The use of PCS for stem revision in failed THA with a limited femoral bone defect is a reliable option for both isolated stem revision and concomitant cup revision in well-selected patients.

One-staged combined hip and knee arthroplasty: retrospective comparative study at mid-term follow-up.

BACKGROUND: To date, few knowledge is available about safety and effectiveness of one-staged combined hip and knee arthroplasty. The aim of our study was to evaluate, in a comparative fashion, complications and outcomes in patients who underwent one-staged hip and knee arthroplasty. METHODS: Forty-two patients were enrolled and allocated into two groups of 21 patients each: one-staged hip and knee arthroplasty (group A) and two-staged hip and knee arthroplasty (group B). The follow-up averaged 50.2 months. Postoperative complications and implant survivorship were assessed prospectively. Outcomes were evaluated with Harris Hip score (HSS), Western Ontario Mc-Ministry score for the hip (h-WOMAC), Knee Society score (KSS), and Western Ontario Mc-Ministry knee score (k-WOMAC). Hip and knee range of motion (ROM) were measured both preoperatively and at the last follow-up. RESULTS: Two (9.5%) patients in group A and three (14.3%) patients in group B developed complications (P = 0.8). Although a significant decrease in postoperative haemoglobin (Hgb) values was found in group A patients during the hospital stay, no differences in blood transfusions were found (P = 0.8). No significant differences were found comparing clinical-functional outcomes between the two groups, while a significant reduction of hospital length of stay was shown in group A patients. CONCLUSIONS: One-staged combined hip and knee arthroplasty could be considered in patients with co-existing severe hip and knee osteoarthritis, providing similar complications and mid-term outcomes of two-staged procedures. However, the reproducibility safety and reliability of these procedures should be confirmed in prospective comparative randomised trials with more numerous patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Retrospectively registered.

Bi-unicompartmental and combined uni plus patellofemoral replacement: indications and surgical technique.

The anatomy and orientation of the condyles and the trochlea are not standard, but related to morphotype, gender and race. Consequently, the extreme variability in their dimension, and in the distance and angle between the axis of the condyles and of the trochlea, often necessitates a "custom-made" replacement. This may be achieved through the use of small implants. Bicompartmental osteoarthritis with intact ligaments should be addressed with bi-unicompartmental (bi-UKR) or UKR plus patellofemoral replacement (PFR). These options allow selective replacement of the worn compartments and a customised fit of the small implants to the native knee anatomy. Clinical consequences are restoration of the native knee kinematics and overall better function.