Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty Using an Uncemented Metaphyseal Sleeve, Rotating Hinge Prosthesis: A Case Series of 99 Patients.

BACKGROUND: Hinge knee replacement is a salvage procedure with historically high failure and complication rates. We aim to analyze the use of an uncemented metaphyseal sleeve revision knee replacement in our unit-a third-generation rotating hinge knee prosthesis. This is the largest reported series of this implant with longest follow up. METHODS: We retrospectively identified 99 revision cases performed (2002-2018). In total, 67 of 99 (68%) cases were performed for aseptic etiology, whereas 32 of 99 (32%) cases were performed for infection. Clinical outcomes were assessed using the Oxford Knee Score, survivorship analysis, and incidence of revision/reoperations. Mean follow-up was 7 years (range 1.5-18). RESULTS: At follow-up, the mean Oxford Knee Score had improved from 10 points to 25 points. At mean 7 years of follow up, 18 of 99 cases had undergone revision giving a survivorship of 81% (90% aseptic). In total, 10 of 18 cases were performed for infection (10%) and 9 of 18 cases were performed for aseptic reasons (9%), of which 5 were for patella resurfacing (2 revision), 2 for failure of bony ingrowth, and 1 for fracture. Twenty-six patients (26%) had complications postoperatively, with patella disorders and reduced range of movement the most common. Patients who did not undergo patella resurfacing were significantly more likely to need revision of any cause (P = .01). CONCLUSION: This is the largest study of this prosthesis with longest follow-up. It demonstrates good survivorship and improvement in knee pain. Those with infection are at greatest risk of revision. Significant numbers have patella dysfunction/anterior knee symptoms therefore patella resurfacing should be considered when using this implant. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

Fewer native and periprosthetic femoral fracture patients receive an orthogeriatric review and expedited surgery compared to hip fracture patients.

INTRODUCTION: Disproportionate emphasis has been attributed to hip fracture over other femoral fractures through implementation of Best Practice Tariff (BPT).This retrospective comparative observational cohort study aimed to evaluate the epidemiology of native and periprosthetic femoral fractures and establish any disparities in their management relative to hip fractures. METHODS: All patients ⩾60 years admitted with a native or periprosthetic femoral fracture during July 2016-June 2018 were identified using our hospital database. Results were compared to National Hip Fracture Database data over the same period. RESULTS: 58 native femoral, 87 periprosthetic and 1032 hip fractures were identified. (46/58) 79% and 76/87 (89%) of native and periprosthetic femoral fractures were managed operatively. Surgery was performed <36 hours for 34/46 (74%) of native femoral and 33/76 (43%) of periprosthetic fractures compared to 826/1032 (80%) for hips. Median time to surgery was longer in periprosthetic femoral than hip fracture patients (44.7 vs. 21.6 hours; p < 0.0001). Orthogeriatrician review occurred in 24/58 (41%) and 48/87 (55%) of native and periprosthetic fractures compared to 1017/1032 (99%) for hips (p < 0.0001). One year mortality was 35%, 20% and 26% for native femoral, periprosthetic and hip fracture patients. Cox proportional hazard ratio was higher for native femoral than hip fracture patients (1.75; 95% CI, 1.12-2.73). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates large disparities in management of other femoral and periprosthetic fractures compared to hip fractures, specifically time to surgery and orthogeriatrician review. This may have resulted in the comparatively higher mortality rate of native femoral fracture patients. Expansion of the BPT to include the whole femur is likely to improve outcomes.

Is MRA an unnecessary expense in the management of a clinically unstable shoulder? A comparison of MRA and arthroscopic findings in 90 patients.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: In detection of glenoid labrum pathology, MR arthrography (MRA) has shown sensitivities of 88-100% and specificities of 89-93%. However, our practice suggested that there may be a higher frequency of falsely negative reports. We assessed the accuracy of this costly modality in practice. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed MRA reports of 90 consecutive patients with clinical shoulder instability who had undergone shoulder arthroscopy. All had a history of traumatic anterior shoulder dislocation and had positive anterior apprehension tests. All underwent arthroscopy and stabilization during the same procedure. We compared the findings, using arthroscopic findings as the gold standard in the identification of glenoid labrum pathology. RESULTS: 83 of the 90 patients had glenoid labrum tears at arthroscopy. Only 54 were correctly identified at MRA. All normal glenoid labra were identified at MRA. This gave a sensitivity of 65% and a specificity of 100% in identification of all types of glenoid labrum tear. 74 patients had anterior glenoid labral tears that were detected at an even lower rate of sensitivity (58%). INTERPRETATION: The sensitivity of MRA in this series was substantially lower than previously published, suggesting that MRA may not be as reliable a diagnostic imaging modality in glenohumeral instability as previously thought. Our findings highlight the importance of an accurate history and clinical examination in the management of glenohumeral instability. The need for MRA may not be as high as is currently believed.

An 18-year comparison of hybrid total hip replacement and Birmingham hip resurfacing in active young patients.

AIM: To compare the long-term clinical and radiological results of metal-on-polyethylene hybrid total hip replacement (THA) with metal-on-metal Birmingham hip resurfacing (BHR) in young, active patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From the 1st consecutive 63 hips in young, active patients who underwent BHR by the senior author, 54 (51 patients) were matched to patients who had undergone THA with regard to age, gender, body mass index and preoperative levels of activity. Radiologically, all hips were assessed for migration and osteolysis, THAs for polyethylene wear and BHRs for a pedestal sign. Patient-reported outcomes, mortality and revision rates were compared. RESULTS: The mean follow-up of the patients with a hybrid THR was 19.9 years and for those with a BHR, 17.6 years. 13 patients with a hybrid THR and 5 with a BHR had died. 1 hybrid THR and 3 BHRs were lost to follow-up. The revision rate of the hybrid THRs was 14/54 and of the BHRs 6/54. Log rank comparison of Kaplan-Meier survival estimates demonstrated a significantly lower mortality in the BHR group (p = 0.039; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.37 [95% CI, 0.15-0.95]) but a non-significant difference in revision rates (p = 0.067; HR = 0.43 [95% CI, 0.18-1.06]). The BHRs recorded superior OHS (p = 0.03), UCLA (p = 0.0096), and EuroQol visual analogue scores (p = 0.03). Significantly more BHRs had run, played sport and undertaken heavy manual labour in the month preceding follow-up. CONCLUSION: After 18 years, patients with BHRs remained more active with a lower mortality rate but demonstrated no significant difference in revision rates. Both groups demonstrated progressive radiological changes at long-term follow-up.

Outcome of revision UKR to TKR when compared to a matched group of TKR of same total arthroplasty lifespan.

AIM: To compare outcomes of revision uni-compartmental knee replacement (UKR) with a defined revision cause with a matched group of primary total knee replacements (TKR). BACKGROUND: UKR accounts for 8.7% of knee arthroplasty in the UK each year. It has better functional outcome than total knee replacement for isolated single compartment arthritis but can result in complex surgery when revision is required. This is feared to result in poorer patient reported outcomes when compared to primary TKR. We aim to compare the clinical results of revised UKR with primary TKR, taking into account the survival length of the UKR. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Forty-five patients (27 female) were retrospectively identified from our arthroplasty database that had undergone revision from UKR to TKR (1999-2014) and had a minimum of two years of follow-up post-revision. These patients were then matched with regards to age at primary procedure, sex, BMI and total arthroplasty life (UKR + Revision TKR) up to point of follow-up. RESULTS: In the UKR revision group (mean arthroplasty life 8.6 years) the mean Oxford knee score (OKS) was 31.8. In the primary knee group (mean arthroplasty life 8.4 years) the mean OKS was 32.8. This difference was not statistically significant. Fifteen out of 45 patients undergoing revision surgery required stemmed components. CONCLUSION: UKR provides comparable clinical outcome even after revision surgery to TKR as primary TKRs and should be considered in all patients meeting the selection criteria. Revision is complex and revision components should be available.

Current orthopaedic management of bony metastases in the proximal third of the femur.

Patients presenting with skeletal metastatic lesions requiring surgery are increasing, this is due to an ageing population and improved oncological survival following advances in medical management. Furthermore, patients are living longer with skeletal metastatic disease. The majority of bone metastases occur in the proximal femur. Robust diagnosis (Biopsy) and treatment is required to ensure that patients can mobilise fully weight bearing immediately post-surgery and that the construct should outlive the patients expected survival. We review the changing management of metastatic disease in the proximal femur.

Knee arthroplasty with a medial rotating total knee replacement. Midterm clinical findings: a district general experience of 38 cases.

BACKGROUND: The Medial Rotating Knee replacement (MRK) was first used in 1994, reporting high rates of satisfaction. It is designed to replicate natural knee kinematics and improve stability and function. There are limited studies on the mid-term clinical outcomes, in particular in a district general hospital (DGH) environment. This is the first study that we are aware of that evaluates the learning curve of the implementation of this knee system in this environment. PATIENTS/METHOD: Between 2007 and 2009 we performed 38 consecutive MRK replacements (MAT ORTHO, UK) in 36 patients. The mean follow-up was four years. Patients were evaluated clinically, using OKS and patient questionnaire and radiographically (good/acceptable/poor) to assess outcome. RESULTS: Mean age was 73.0 years. Mean pre-operative OKS was 17.7 (range 8-29), which rose to 38.1 (range 23-48) at latest follow up (p<0.005). Overall 71% of the patients were either satisfied (29%) or very satisfied (42%). 81% felt an improvement of the ability to go up or down stairs and 92% felt stable. All poor radiographic and the majority of acceptable outcomes were experienced in the first 50% of cases. CONCLUSION: The MRK can be successfully implanted in a DGH environment. It improves pain and function comparably to standard TKRs, however, subjective improvement may be higher. Radiographic evaluation shows an acceptable learning curve. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV case series.

5-Year cost/benefit analysis of revision of failed unicompartmental knee replacements (UKRs); not "just" a primary total knee replacement (TKR).

BACKGROUND: A number of studies suggest that one advantage of a unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) is ease of revision to a total knee replacement (TKR). We aimed to perform a cost/benefit analysis of patients undergoing this procedure at our centre to evaluate its economic viability. METHODS: From our own prospective joint replacement database we identified 812 consecutive tibio-femoral UKRs performed (1994-2007) of which 23 were revised to TKR (2005-2008). These were then matched to a cohort of primary TKRs (42 patients). Data were collected regarding patient demographics, cost of surgery, clinical outcome (OKS) and follow-up costs at five years. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in implant costs or in length of stay, however tourniquet time was significantly higher in the revision group (average 93 min (UKR) vs 75 min (TKR) p<0.0001). At five years there was no significant difference in clinical outcome between the revision UKR and primary TKR groups, mean OKS 27 and 32 respectively (p=0.20). The revision group had a greater complication and revision rate, attending significantly more follow-up appointments (average 6 (UKR) vs 2 (TKR) p<0.0001) and consultant appointments (average 4 (UKR) vs 0.4 (TKR) p<0.0001). This was translated to significantly higher follow-up costs. CONCLUSION: Revision of UKR to TKR is not universally a straightforward procedure comparable to a standard primary replacement. Despite cost of components not being significantly higher than primary TKR there are multiple hidden follow-up costs. The clinical outcomes are however similar at 5 years.

Factors influencing length of stay following primary total knee replacement in a UK specialist orthopaedic centre.

AIM: To identify factors significant in influencing LOS following primary TKA in a UK specialist arthroplasty centre. METHOD: We retrospectively reviewed factors affecting LOS of 514 patients who underwent primary TKA in a single specialist arthroplasty centre in the UK over a one-year period. Surgical and patient factors that may influence LOS were recorded. RESULTS: The median LOS was 5days. 85% were discharged within 10days. Those staying longer were classified as long stay (up to 3months). The only surgical factor that influenced length of stay was postoperative blood transfusion (p<0.0001). Females stayed longer as did those who lived in more deprived areas. These factors did not remain significant in multivariate analysis. The other most significant predictors at multivariate analysis were pre-operative patient factors such as poor anaesthetic fitness (ASA3 and ASA4) (p=0.001), BMI=30-35 (p=0.04), BMI>35 (p=0.009) and age>80 (p=0.01). CONCLUSION: Length of stay is largely due to case mix and this should be considered when planning a local arthroplasty service. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2-II.