A novel tool for predicting the survival of endoprosthesis used for reconstruction of the knee following tumor resection: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Prosthesis-related complications, after knee reconstruction with endoprosthesis during operation for tumors around the knee, remain an unresolved problem which necessitate a revision or even an amputational surgery. The purpose of the current study was to identify significant risk factors associated with implant failure, and establish a novel model to predict survival of the prosthesis in patients operated with endoprostheses for tumor around knee. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the clinical database of our institution for patients who underwent knee reconstruction due to tumors. A total of 203 patients were included, including 123 males (60.6%) and 80 (39.4%) females, ranging in age from 14 to 77 years (mean: 34.3 ± 17.3 years). The cohort was randomly divided into training (n = 156) and validation (n = 47) samples. Univariable COX analysis was used for initially identifying potential independent predictors of prosthesis survival with the training group (p < 0.150). Multivariate COX proportional hazard model was selected to identify final significant prognostic factors. Using these significant predictors, a graphic nomogram, and an online dynamic nomogram were generated for predicting the prosthetic survival. C-index and calibration curve were used for evaluate the discrimination ability and accuracy of the novel model, both in the training and validation groups. RESULTS: The 1-, 5-, and 10-year prosthetic survival rates were 94.0, 90.8, and 83.0% in training sample, and 96.7, 85.8, and 76.9% in validation sample, respectively. Anatomic sites, length of resection and length of prosthetic stem were independently associated with the prosthetic failure according to multivariate COX regression model (p<0.05). Using these three significant predictors, a graphical nomogram and an online dynamic nomogram model were generated. The C-indexes in training and validation groups were 0.717 and 0.726 respectively, demonstrating favourable discrimination ability of the novel model. And the calibration curve at each time point showed favorable consistency between the predicted and actual survival rates in training and validation samples. CONCLUSIONS: The length of resection, anatomical location of tumor, and length of prosthetic stem were significantly associated with prosthetic survival in patients operated for tumor around knee. A user-friendly novel online model model, with favorable discrimination ability and accuracy, was generated to help surgeons predict the survival of the prosthesis.

Biconvex Patellar Components: 96% Durability at 10 Years in 262 Revision Total Knee Arthroplasties.

BACKGROUND: The optimal strategy to address osseous deficiencies of the patella during revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) remains controversial. One possible solution is a cemented biconvex patellar component used such that the non-articular convexity both improves fixation and makes up for bone loss. The aim of this study was to determine the outcomes of the use of biconvex patellar components in a large series of revision TKAs. METHODS: From 1996 to 2014, 262 revision TKAs were performed at a single institution using a biconvex patellar component. Implant survivorship, clinical and radiographic results, and complications were assessed. The mean patient age at the TKA revision was 69 years, and 53% of the patients were female. The mean follow-up was 7 years. RESULTS: The 10-year survivorship free of revision of the biconvex patellar component due to aseptic loosening was 96%. The 10-year survivorship free of any revision of the biconvex patellar component was 87%. The 10-year survivorship free of any rerevision and free of any reoperation was 75% and 70%, respectively. The mean Knee Society Score (KSS) improved from 45.4 before the index revision to 67.7 after it. The mean residual composite thickness seen on the most recent radiographs was 18.1 mm. In addition to the complications leading to revision, the most common complications were periprosthetic patellar fracture (6%), of which 3 required revision; superficial wound infection (6%) requiring antibiotic therapy only or irrigation and debridement; and arthrofibrosis (3%). CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of 262 revision TKAs, biconvex patellar components used to treat marked patellar bone loss demonstrated excellent durability with a 10-year survivorship free of patellar rerevision due to aseptic loosening of 96%. The biconvex patellar components were reliable as evidenced by substantial improvements in clinical outcomes scores and a low risk of complications. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Do Fixed or Mobile Bearing Implants Have Better Survivorship in Medial Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty? A Study From the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry.

BACKGROUND: During the last 5 years, there has been an increase in the use of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) to treat knee osteoarthritis in Australia, and these account for almost 6% of annual knee replacement procedures. However, there is debate as to whether a fixed bearing or a mobile bearing design is best for decreasing revision for loosening and disease progression as well as improving survivorship. Small sample sizes and possible confounding in the studies on the topic may have masked differences between fixed and mobile bearing designs. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: Using data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR), we selected the four contemporary designs of medial compartment UKA: mobile bearing, fixed modular, all-polyethylene, and fixed molded metal-backed used for the treatment of osteoarthritis to ask: (1) How do the different designs of unicompartmental knees compare with survivorship as measured by cumulative percentage revision (CPR)? (2) Is there a difference in the revision rate between designs as a function of patient sex or age? (3) Do the reasons for revision differ, and what types of revision procedures are performed when these UKA are revised? METHODS: The AOANJRR longitudinally maintains data on all primary and revision joint arthroplasties, with nearly 100% capture. The study population included all UKA procedures undertaken for osteoarthritis between September 1999 and December 2018. Of 56,628 unicompartmental knees recorded during the study period, 50,380 medial UKA procedures undertaken for osteoarthritis were included in the analysis after exclusion of procedures with unknown bearing types (31 of 56,628), lateral or patellofemoral compartment UKA procedures (5657 of 56,628), and those performed for a primary diagnosis other than osteoarthritis (560 of 56,628). There were 50,380 UKA procedures available for analysis. The study group consisted of 40% (20,208 of 50,380) mobile bearing UKA, 35% (17,822 of 50,380) fixed modular UKA, 23% (11,461 of 50,380) all-polyethylene UKA, and 2% (889 of 50,380) fixed molded metal-backed UKA. There were similar sex proportions and age distributions for each bearing group. The overall mean age of patients was 65 ± 9.4 years, and 55% (27,496 of 50,380) of patients were males. The outcome measure was the CPR, which was defined using Kaplan-Meier estimates of survivorship to describe the time to the first revision. Hazard ratios from Cox proportional hazards models, adjusted for sex and age, were performed to compare the revision rates among groups. The cohort was stratified into age groups of younger than 65 years and 65 years and older to compare revision rates as a function of age. Differences among bearing groups for the major causes and modes of revision were assessed using hazard ratios. RESULTS: At 15 years, fixed modular UKA had a CPR of 16% (95% CI 15% to 17%). In comparison, the CPR was 23% (95% CI 22% to 24%) for mobile bearing UKA, 26% (95% CI 24% to 27%) for all-polyethylene UKA, and 20% (95% CI 16% to 24%) for fixed molded metal-backed UKA. The lower revision rate for fixed modular UKA was seen through the entire period compared with mobile bearing UKA (hazard ratio 1.5 [95% CI 1.4 to 1.6]; p < 0.001) and fixed molded metal-backed UKA (HR 1.3 [95% CI 1.1 to 1.6]; p = 0.003), but it varied with time compared with all-polyethylene UKA. The findings were consistent when stratified by sex or age. Although all-polyethylene UKA had the highest revision rate overall and for patients younger than 65 years, for patients aged 65 years and older, there was no difference between all-polyethylene and mobile bearing UKA. When compared with fixed modular UKA, a higher revision risk for loosening was shown in both mobile bearing UKA (HR 1.7 [95% CI 1.5 to 1.9]; p < 0.001) and all-polyethylene UKA (HR 2.4 [95% CI 2.1 to 2.7]; p < 0.001). The revision risk for disease progression was higher for all-polyethylene UKA at all time points (HR 1.4 [95% CI 1.3 to 1.6]; p < 0.001) and for mobile bearing UKA after 8 years when each were compared with fixed modular UKA (8 to 12 years: HR 1.4 [95% CI 1.2 to 1.7]; p < 0.001; 12 or more years: HR 1.9 [95% CI 1.5 to 2.3]; p < 0.001). The risk of revision to TKA was higher for mobile bearing UKA compared with fixed modular UKA (HR 1.4 [95% CI 1.3 to 1.5]; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: If UKA is to be considered for the treatment of isolated medial compartment osteoarthritis, the fixed modular UKA bearing has the best survivorship of the current UKA designs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Custom Implants in TKA Provide No Substantial Benefit in Terms of Outcome Scores, Reoperation Risk, or Mean Alignment: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Failure to accurately replicate the native anatomy and biomechanics of the knee has been suggested to contribute to dissatisfaction after TKA. Custom implants promise a personalized surgical approach, with the aim of improving patient satisfaction and pain as well as lowering revision rates. However, some published research on custom TKA implants has found no clinically important improvements in postoperative validated outcomes scores, risks of revision or reoperation, and implant alignment. In the interest of helping to settle this controversy, a systematic review seems warranted. QUESTION/PURPOSE: In this systematic review, we asked whether custom implants result in clinically important improvements over conventional off-the-shelf implants for anatomically uncomplicated primary TKA in terms of (1) validated outcomes scores, (2) the risk of revision or reoperation, and (3) implant alignment. METHODS: The US National Library of Medicine (PubMed/Medline), Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were systematically searched to identify publications from the past 10 years relevant to this review. Publications that compared the clinical outcome measures, number of revisions and reoperations, and radiological assessment of implant alignment of custom and standard implants with validated endpoints were eligible for inclusion. In the interest of capturing as much potentially relevant information as possible, we applied no requirement for minimum follow-up duration. Clinical outcomes were assessed using patient-reported outcome (PROM) scores including the Knee Society Score (KSS), Forgotten Joint Score, and Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score. The risk for revision or reoperation were evaluated by the number of early and late manipulations, debridement procedures, and replacement of one or more components. Implant alignment was compared using postoperative deviation from the neutral (0°) mechanical axis of the limb and each component and the posterior tibial slope. All qualified studies were retrospective, and all compared custom implants with standard implants. Data on 1510 patients were reviewed (749 with custom implants and 761 with off-the-shelf implants). The mean follow-up time ranged from 12 to 33 months. RESULTS: There was no apparent advantage to custom implants in terms of PROM scores. Of the five studies evaluating clinical outcomes, only one reported better KSS-Function scores at 3 months; two reported no difference, and two found inferior KSS scores. In several studies, custom implants were associated with more frequent reoperations than standard implants. Although in general there were no differences between custom and standard implants in terms of mean coronal plane limb alignment, one of seven studies found that the proportion of patients whose alignment was outside ± 3° from the neutral axis in the coronal plane was lower in the custom group than in the standard group. CONCLUSION: With generally poorer outcomes scores for pain and function, generally higher risks of reoperation and reintervention, and no overall benefit to alignment, custom implants for primary TKA for the general population currently appear to be inferior to standard implants. Whether the slight reduction in the proportion of patients with alignment outliers observed in a minority of studies will result in a substantial reduction in revision risk over time must be addressed by future studies. However, until or unless such a reduction is proven, we recommend against the routine use of custom implants in practice because of increased costs and the risks associated with their novelty. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Powered knee and ankle prosthesis with indirect volitional swing control enables level-ground walking and crossing over obstacles.

Powered prostheses aim to mimic the missing biological limb with controllers that are finely tuned to replicate the nominal gait pattern of non-amputee individuals. Unfortunately, this control approach poses a problem with real-world ambulation, which includes tasks such as crossing over obstacles, where the prosthesis trajectory must be modified to provide adequate foot clearance and ensure timely foot placement. Here, we show an indirect volitional control approach that enables prosthesis users to walk at different speeds while smoothly and continuously crossing over obstacles of different sizes without explicit classification of the environment. At the high level, the proposed controller relies on a heuristic algorithm to continuously change the maximum knee flexion angle and the swing duration in harmony with the user's residual limb. At the low level, minimum-jerk planning is used to continuously adapt the swing trajectory while maximizing smoothness. Experiments with three individuals with above-knee amputation show that the proposed control approach allows for volitional control of foot clearance, which is necessary to negotiate environmental barriers. Our study suggests that a powered prosthesis controller with intrinsic, volitional adaptability may provide prosthesis users with functionality that is not currently available, facilitating real-world ambulation.

Are There Differences in Accuracy or Outcomes Scores Among Navigated, Robotic, Patient-specific Instruments or Standard Cutting Guides in TKA? A Network Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Several kinds of cutting guides, including patient-specific instrumentation, navigation, standard cutting guides, accelerometer-based navigation, and robotic guidance, are available to restore a planned alignment during TKA. No previous study has simultaneously compared all of these devices; a network meta-analysis is an especially appealing method because it allows comparisons across approaches that were not compared head-to-head in individual randomized controlled trials. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We performed a network meta-analysis to determine whether novel approaches to achieving implant alignment, such as patient-specific instrumentation, navigation, accelerometer-based navigation, and robotic guidance, provide any advantage over standard cutting guides in terms of: (1) hip-knee-ankle (HKA) alignment outliers greater than ± 3°, (2) outcome scores (1989 - Knee Society Score and WOMAC score) measured 6 months after surgery, or (3) femoral and tibial implant malalignment (greater than ± 3°), taken separately, in the frontal and sagittal plane, as well as other secondary outcomes including validated outcome scores 1 and 2 years after surgery. METHODS: In our network meta-analysis, we included randomized controlled trials comparing the different cutting guides by using at least one of the previously specified criteria, without limitation on language or date of publication. We searched electronic databases, major orthopaedic journals, proceedings of major orthopaedic meetings, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform until October 1, 2018. This led to the inclusion of 90 randomized controlled trials involving 9389 patients (mean age 68.8 years) with 10,336 TKAs. Two reviewers independently selected trials and extracted data. The primary outcomes were the proportion patients with malalignment of the HKA angle (defined as HKA > 3° from neutral) and the Knee Society Score and WOMAC scores at 6 months postoperatively. We combined direct and indirect comparisons using a Bayesian network meta-analysis framework to assess and compare the effect of different cutting guides on outcomes. Bayesian estimates are based on the posterior distribution of an endpoint and are called credible intervals. Usually the 95% credible interval, corresponding to a posterior probability of 0.95 that the endpoint lies in the interval, is computed. Unlike the frequentist approach, the Bayesian approach does not allow the calculation of the p value. RESULTS: The proportion of HKA outliers was lower with navigation than with patient-specific instrumentation (risk ratio 0.46 [95% credible interval (CI) 0.34 to 0.63]) and standard cutting guides (risk ratio 0.45 [95% CI 0.37 to 0.53]); however, this corresponded to an actual difference of only 12% of patients for navigation versus 21% of patients for patient-specific instrumentation, and 12% of patients for navigation versus 25% for standard cutting guides. We found no differences for other comparisons between different cutting guides, including robotics and the accelerometer. We found no differences in the Knee Society Score or WOMAC score between the different cutting guides at 6 months. Regarding secondary outcomes, navigation reduced the risk of frontal and sagittal malalignments for femoral and tibial components compared with the standard cutting guides, but none of the other cutting guides showed superiority for the other secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Navigation resulted in approximately 10% fewer patients having HKA outliers of more than 3°, without any corresponding improvement in validated outcomes scores. It is unknown whether this incremental reduction in the proportion of patients who have alignment outside a window that itself has been called into question will justify the increased costs and surgical time associated with the approach. We believe that until or unless these new approaches either (1) convincingly demonstrate superior survivorship, or (2) convincingly demonstrate superior outcomes, surgeons and hospitals should not use these approaches since they add cost, have a learning curve (during which some patients may be harmed), and have the risks associated with uncertainty of novel surgical approaches. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, therapeutic study.

Gap balancing versus measured resection in primary total knee arthroplasty: A retrospective cohort study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Recently, controversy still exists regarding the clinical effects of measured resection or gap-balancing technique in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The objective of this retrospective study was to compare the clinical outcomes of conventional measured resection technique and computer-assisted gap-balancing technique in TKA. METHODS: Strengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology checklist. Patients underwent primary TKA by a single surgeon between 2014 and 2016 were reviewed. This study was approved by the institutional review board in our hospital and was registered in the Research Registry. Outcome measures included surgical time, intraoperative complications, patient satisfaction, Oxford Knee Score, range of motion, postoperative complications, and revision. RESULTS: This study had limited inclusion and exclusion criteria and a well-controlled intervention. CONCLUSION: We were able to directly compare the outcomes of measured resection versus gap-balancing techniques and might reveal a better technique in TKA. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study protocol was registered in Research Registry (researchregistry5441).

Joint line elevation and tibial slope are associated with increased polyethylene wear in cruciate-retaining total knee replacement.

The purpose of this retrieval study was to determine the effect of implant positioning on wear, taking patient-related factors into account. Therefore, the volumetric material loss of 59 retrieved tibial liners was quantitatively determined using a coordinate measuring-machine. All retrievals were made of the same polyethylene and design by a single manufacturer. Using time in-situ and linear regression, a wear rate for each liner was determined and corrected for bedding-in. Backside damage was qualitatively scored. The following implant positioning parameters were obtained from radiographs: anatomical lateral-distal femoral angle, anatomical medial-proximal tibial angle, femoral tilt angle, and posterior tibial slope. The patella position was assessed by the Blackburne-Peel index and the Insall-Salvati ratio. Unlike the Insall-Salvati ratio, the Blackburne-Peel index is known to detect surgical joint line elevation. Using general linear modeling the most impactful factors on wear rate and backside damage was determined, thereby taking patient demographic factors into account. The mean volumetric wear rate was 11.6 mm3 /y. Wear decreased with older age (P = .021) and female sex (P = .001). The wear rate increased with joint line elevation as indicated from a decreased Blackburne-Peel index (P = .019), and increased with increased posterior tibial slope (P = .026). The backside damage score also increased with joint line elevation (P = .036). A Blackburne-Peel index decrease of 0.1, signifying joint line elevation, was found to increase the wear rate by 1.8 mm3 /y and increase back-sided wear. A high tibial slope (>7°) led to a 9.3 mm3 /y increase in wear rate compared with a low tibial slope (<3°). The results of this study demonstrate that tibial liner positioning has a significant impact on polyethylene wear with potential implications on osteolysis over time.

Excellent survival and outcomes with fixed-bearing medial UKA in young patients (≤ 60 years) at minimum 10-year follow-up.

PURPOSE: To evaluate whether long-term (10-year minimum) patient outcomes and survival of fixed-bearing medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) in patients aged ≤ 60 years were favorable despite non-conventional age criteria. METHODS: The authors reviewed the records of 91 consecutive medial UKAs performed in patients aged ≤ 60 by a single surgeon. All patients received the same fixed-bearing M/G Unicompartmental Knee System. Patients records were updated, noting complications or revisions, and Oxford Knee Scores and overall satisfaction collected. If deceased, the general practitioner or next of kin provided data. RESULTS: Of the initial 91 knees, 10 were revised, 6 were deceased, and 1 was lost to follow-up. The final cohort of 74 knees was aged 54.3 ± 4.3 years (range 41.8-60.6) at index surgery. Using revision of any component as endpoint, the present series had a KM survival of 92.9% (CI 84.8-96.7%) at 10 years, and 87.8% (CI 78.4-93.2%) at 15 years, and a single non-fatal DVT was reported. At final follow-up of 15 ± 1.3 years (range 11-18), OKS (available for all 74 knees) was 38.4 ± 8.4 (range 18-48). Overall patients were pleased or very pleased with 72 of the knees (97%). CONCLUSION: Fixed-bearing medial UKA yields favorable results in the treatment of single compartment osteoarthritis of the knee in patients ≤ 60 years. The present study demonstrates low complication rates, good-to-excellent long-term patient outcomes, and satisfactory implant survival for this age group considering the advantages of UKA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, retrospective cohort study.

Excellent mid-term osseointegration and implant survival using metaphyseal sleeves in revision total knee arthroplasty.

PURPOSE: Metaphyseal fixation in revision total knee arthroplasty (RTKA) is a very promising treatment option for extended bone defects. Currently published mid-term results remain limited. The purpose was to analyse the implant durability, the clinical and the radiological mid-term results in RTKA when using metaphyseal sleeves. METHODS: Clinical and radiological follow-up examinations were performed in 92 patients (93 knees) with RTKA using hybrid fixation technique (cementless sleeves and stem). Radiographic measurements regarding osseointegration at the bone-sleeve interface were performed and the range of motion (ROM), a subjective satisfaction score (SSS), the American Knee Society Score (KSS), the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) as well as the SF-36 Health survey were examined. Bone defects were analysed using the Anderson Orthopaedic Research Institute (AORI) classification. RESULTS: No knee had to be revised due to aseptic loosening at the time of the follow-up (mean 6.3 years ± 2.3, minimum 2 years). Satisfactory radiographic osseointegration at the sleeve/bone interface was detected in 96.1% of cases. 17 knees (18.2%) had to be re-revised, 15 of them due to a recurrent infection and 2 due to aseptic reasons (mediolateral instability and a periprosthetic fracture). The median of the ROM (96°), SSS (8), KSS (87), WOMAC (9), SF-36 MCS (55) and SF-36 PCS (38) showed very satisfying results. CONCLUSION: No case of aseptic loosening was found in this large series of RTKA with extended bone defects using metaphyseal sleeve fixation. In this large retrospective series, it has been shown that this technique is an excellent treatment option for extended bone defects in RTKA surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Retrospective cohort study, level III.

No difference in patient preference for medial pivot versus posterior-stabilized design in staged bilateral total knee arthroplasty: a prospective study.

PURPOSE: Medial pivot (MP) TKA has been shown to mimic normal knee kinematics with long-term survivorship comparable to most contemporary TKA. However, there are inadequate evidences to suggest its superiority in terms of patient preference and satisfaction. The aim of this study is to compare the MP with posterior-stabilized (PS) TKA in terms of patient preference and satisfaction. METHODS: 46 patients with staged bilateral TKA were recruited. TKA with MP or PS design was performed at interval of 6-12 months. Patient preference, patient satisfaction score (0-100), Forgotten Joint Score (FJS), range of motion (ROM), Pain Score, Knee Society Score (KSS), Knee Function Score (KFS) and WOMAC Score were compared at up to 12 months. RESULTS: The mean age was 70 and 69.6% were female. There was no difference in all preoperative parameters, operative time and length of stay between two knees. No difference was found in in range of motion and all outcome scores at 6 months and 12 months. Satisfaction score was similar for the two designs (82 vs 85, p = n.s.) at 1 year after the second TKA. Proportion of patients with preference on one design over another was not significantly different (28.9 vs 35.6%, p = n.s.). CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence to support the superiority of MP TKA over PS TKA in terms of preference and satisfaction. The choice between MP TKA versus PS TKA maybe more a surgeon's preference than a patient's preference based on current evidence.

Prediction of wear performance in femoral and tibial conformity in patient-specific cruciate-retaining total knee arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Articular surface curvature design is important in tibiofemoral kinematics and the contact mechanics of total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Thus far, the effects of articular surface curvature have not been adequately discussed with respect to conforming, nonconforming, and medial pivot designs in patient-specific TKA. Therefore, this study evaluates the underlying relationship between the articular surface curvature geometry and the wear performance in patient-specific TKA. METHODS: We compare the wear performances between conventional and patient-specific TKA under gait loading conditions using a computational simulation. Patient-specific TKAs investigated in the study are categorized into patient-specific TKA with conforming articular surfaces, medial pivot patient-specific TKA, and bio-mimetic patient-specific TKA with a patient's own tibial and femoral anatomy. The geometries of the femoral components in patient-specific TKAs are identical. RESULTS: The anterior-posterior and internal-external kinematics change with respect to different TKA designs. Moreover, the contact pressure and area did not directly affect the wear performance. In particular, conforming patient-specific TKAs exhibit the highest volumetric wear and wear rate. The volumetric wear in a conforming patient-specific TKA is 29% greater than that in a medial pivot patient-specific TKA. CONCLUSION: The findings in this study highlight that conformity changes in the femoral and tibial inserts influence the wear performance in patient-specific TKA. Kinematics and contact parameters should be considered to improve wear performance in patient-specific TKA. The conformity modification in the tibiofemoral joint changes the kinematics and contact parameters, and this affects wear performance.

Comparison of posterior-stabilized, cruciate-retaining, and medial-stabilized knee implant motion during gait.

Accurate knowledge of knee joint motion is needed to evaluate the effects of implant design on functional performance and component wear. We conducted a randomized controlled trial to measure and compare 6-degree-of-freedom (6-DOF) kinematics and femoral condylar motion of posterior-stabilized (PS), cruciate-retaining (CR), and medial-stabilized (MS) knee implant designs for one cycle of walking. A mobile biplane X-ray imaging system was used to accurately measure 6-DOF tibiofemoral motion as patients implanted with PS (n = 23), CR (n = 25), or MS (n = 26) knees walked over ground at their self-selected speeds. Knee flexion angle did not differ significantly between the three designs. Relative movements of the femoral and tibial components were generally similar for PS and CR with significant differences observed only for anterior tibial drawer. Knee kinematic profiles measured for MS were appreciably different: external rotation and abduction of the tibia were increased while peak-to-peak anterior drawer was significantly reduced for MS compared with PS and CR. Anterior-posterior drawer and medial-lateral shift of the tibia were strongly coupled to internal-external rotation for MS, as was anterior-posterior translation of the contact center in the lateral compartment. MS exhibited the least amount of paradoxical anterior translation of the femur relative to the tibia during knee flexion. The joint center of rotation in the transverse plane was located in the lateral compartment for PS and CR and in the medial compartment for MS. Substantial differences were evident in 6-DOF knee kinematics between the healthy knee and all three prosthetic designs. Overall, knee kinematic profiles observed for MS resemble those of the healthy joint more closely than PS and CR.

Mid-term survivorship and patient-reported outcomes of robotic-arm assisted partial knee arthroplasty.

AIMS: Limited evidence is available on mid-term outcomes of robotic-arm assisted (RA) partial knee arthroplasty (PKA). Therefore, the purpose of this study was to evaluate mid-term survivorship, modes of failure, and patient-reported outcomes of RA PKA. METHODS: A retrospective review of patients who underwent RA PKA between June 2007 and August 2016 was performed. Patients received a fixed-bearing medial or lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA), patellofemoral arthroplasty (PFA), or bicompartmental knee arthroplasty (BiKA; PFA plus medial UKA). All patients completed a questionnaire regarding revision surgery, reoperations, and level of satisfaction. Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Scores (KOOS) were assessed using the KOOS for Joint Replacement Junior survey. RESULTS: Mean follow-up was 4.7 years (2.0 to 10.8). Five-year survivorship of medial UKA (n = 802), lateral UKA (n = 171), and PFA/BiKA (n = 35/10) was 97.8%, 97.7%, and 93.3%, respectively. Component loosening and progression of osteoarthritis (OA) were the most common reasons for revision. Mean KOOS scores after medial UKA, lateral UKA, and PFA/BiKA were 84.3 (SD 15.9), 85.6 (SD 14.3), and 78.2 (SD 14.2), respectively. The vast majority of the patients reported high satisfaction levels after RA PKA. Subgroup analyses suggested tibial component design, body mass index (BMI), and age affects RA PKA outcomes. Five-year survivorship was 98.4% (95% confidence interval (CI) 97.2 to 99.5) for onlay medial UKA (n = 742) and 99.1% (95% CI 97.9 to 100) for onlay medial UKA in patients with a BMI < 30 kg/m2 (n = 479). CONCLUSION: This large single-surgeon study showed high mid-term survivorship, satisfaction levels, and functional outcomes in RA UKA using metal-backed tibial onlay components. In addition, favourable results were reported in RA PFA and BiKA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(1):108-116.

Focal metallic inlay resurfacing prosthesis in articular cartilage defects: short-term results of 118 patients and 2 different implants.

BACKGROUND: The goal of this study was to share our experience with two different inlay metallic implants in the treatment of knee cartilage defects and to analyze their effects on functional scores. METHODS: This retrospective study included 118 patients operated on for focal full-thickness knee cartilage lesions, who were treated with a focal metallic inlay resurfacing prosthesis. A cobalt-chromium (Co-Cr) resurfacing implant was applied to 73 patients with a knee chondral lesion, and a biosynthetic implant was applied to 45. All patients were evaluated preoperatively and postoperatively using the KOOS, VAS, and Tegner activity scores. RESULTS: The group with the Co-Cr-resurfacing implant showed a significantly greater improvement (p < 0.001) in the Tegner and VAS scores at the 2-year follow-up examination. The KOOS scores were similar in both groups. Median patient age was similar in both groups. All patients had a follow-up of at least 2 years. The preoperative and postoperative scores were compared and significant improvements (p < 0.001) were observed. The biosynthetic implant had a higher revision rate. In the univariate analysis, age and type of implant were significantly associated with revision surgery. In the multivariate Cox-regression analysis model, the type of implant was significantly associated with revision surgery. CONCLUSION: All the patients operated with the above-mentioned implants showed significant improvements in pain and activity scores. Despite the overall good clinical results, 17% of patients with a biosynthetic implant and > 6% of patients with Co-Cr-resurfacing implant required revision surgery. Age and implant type were the main risk factors associated with revision.

Revision Risk for Total Knee Arthroplasty Converted from Medial Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: Comparison with Primary and Revision Arthroplasties, Based on Mid-Term Results from the Danish Knee Arthroplasty Registry.

BACKGROUND: Medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasties (UKAs) have good clinical outcomes but implant survival is inferior to that of total knee arthroplasties (TKAs). Conversion to a TKA is a reliable option when UKA fails. However, there is controversy regarding these conversions. The aim of this study was to analyze the survival of TKAs converted from UKAs when compared with both primary and revision TKAs. METHODS: On the basis of registrations in the Danish Knee Arthroplasty Registry from 1997 to 2017, 1,012 TKAs converted from UKAs were compared with 73,819 primary TKAs and 2,572 revision TKAs. The primary outcome was the risk of revision. Secondarily, the study analyzed the influence of different implants, the indication for the UKA conversion, and surgical volume on the survival of TKA converted from UKA. Third, the study compared the indications for revision. RESULTS: The converted UKAs were mainly mobile-bearing (85%) and, at the time of conversion, the patients were younger (mean [standard deviation], 66 ± 10 years) and more were Charnley class A (55%) compared with patients with primary TKA (70 ± 9 years and 35% class A) or revision TKA (70 ± 10 years and 42% class A) (all p < 0.001). The survival of TKAs converted from UKAs was comparable with that of revision TKAs (p = 0.42) and significantly inferior to the survival of primary TKAs (p < 0.001). This relationship was unaffected by differences between the groups, with an adjusted hazard ratio of 0.94 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.74 to 1.19) compared with revision TKAs and 3.00 (95% CI: 2.47 to 3.66) compared with primary TKAs. The survival of TKA converted from UKA was unaffected by differences in the conversion implants (all p ≥ 0.47), experience with revision surgery (all p ≥ 0.06), and the indications for the UKA-to-TKA conversion (all p ≥ 0.27). Instability (26%) and unexplained pain (13%) were more frequent indications for revisions of TKA converted from UKA (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: TKA converted from medial UKA has a 3-fold higher risk of revision when compared with primary TKA. The implant survival resembled that of revision TKA but with a higher prevalence of unexplained pain and instability. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Preferred Single-Vendor Program for Total Joint Arthroplasty Implants: Surgeon Adoption, Outcomes, and Cost Savings.

BACKGROUND: In total joint arthroplasty, variation in implant use can be driven by vendor relationships, surgeon preference, and technological advancements. Our institution developed a preferred single-vendor program for primary hip and knee arthroplasty. We hypothesized that this initiative would decrease implant costs without compromising performance on quality metrics. METHODS: The utilization of implants from the preferred vendor was evaluated for the first 12 months of the contract (September 1, 2017, to August 31, 2018; n = 4,246 cases) compared with the prior year (September 1, 2016, to August 31, 2017; n = 3,586 cases). Per-case implant costs were compared using means and independent-samples t tests. Performance on quality metrics, including 30-day readmission, 30-day surgical site infection (SSI), and length of stay (LOS), was compared using multivariable-adjusted regression models. RESULTS: The utilization of implants from the preferred vendor increased from 50% to 69% (p < 0.001), with greater use of knee implants than hip implants from the preferred vendor, although significant growth was seen for both (from 62% to 81% for knee, p < 0.001; and from 38% to 58% for hip, p < 0.001). Adoption of the preferred-vendor initiative was greatest among low-volume surgeons (from 22% to 87%; p < 0.001) and lowest among very high-volume surgeons (from 61% to 62%; p = 0.573). For cases in which implants from the preferred vendor were utilized, the mean cost per case decreased by 23% in the program's first year (p < 0.001), with an associated 11% decrease in the standard deviation. Among all cases, there were no significant changes with respect to 30-day readmission (p = 0.449) or SSI (p = 0.059), while mean LOS decreased in the program's first year (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The creation of a preferred single-vendor model for hip and knee arthroplasty implants led to significant cost savings and decreased cost variability within the program's first year. Higher-volume surgeons were less likely to modify their implant choice than were lower-volume surgeons. Despite the potential learning curve associated with changes in surgical implants, there was no difference in short-term quality metrics. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Fifteen-year survival of the Cedior™ total knee prosthesis.

Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is an effective treatment for advanced osteoarthritis of the knee. No large and long-term follow-up study has been done about Cedior® prosthesis. The study hypothesis was that 15-year survival for the Cedior™ prosthesis is at least as good as rates reported for other models. A continuous retrospective single-center study included patients managed by Cedior™ TKA with at least 15-year follow-up. The main endpoint was prosthesis survival; secondary objectives were to identify factors for implant revision and to assess functional scores at 15 years. In the present series, 15-year all-cause survival for the Cedior® knee prosthesis was 93.03%; comparable to rates in the literature, posterior-stabilized implants showed higher revision rates. No other factors for revision emerged. These findings are comparable with those of the literature.

Clinical Survivorship of Aseptic Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty Using Hinged Knees and Tantalum Cones at Minimum 10-Year Follow-Up.

BACKGROUND: The reconstruction of severe bone loss utilizing porous tantalum cones in patients undergoing revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has been established in the last years. However, reports on a long-term follow-up to assess the durability of such implants when combined with hinged knee designs are lacking. The current study aimed to evaluate the results of a previous study cohort at a minimum follow-up of 10 years. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed. The initial study cohort comprised of 38 patients who underwent aseptic revision TKA between 2007 and 2009 at a single institution. After exclusion of the deceased patients and patients who were lost to follow-up, 25 patients with hinged knees and 32 cones implanted were included with a minimum follow-up of 10 years (mean = 126.5 months, range 120-142, standard deviation [SD] = 5.92). Survivorship was determined, and re-revisions were observed. Functional Knee Society Score was assessed. RESULTS: After a minimum of 10 years, 24 of 32 cones (75%) had survived without any exchange in 18 patients. Reasons for cone revision included aseptic loosening (5/32 cones; 15.6%) and periprosthetic joint infection (3/32 cones; 9.4%). In 4 of the five revisions due to aseptic loosening, pure hinged knees had been implanted. The mean functional Knee Society Score of the survivors was 69.6 points (range 10-100, SD = 30.85), and the average flexion ability of the knee was 92° (range 30°-120°, SD = 22.09). CONCLUSION: Porous tantalum cones in revision TKA exhibited no favorable but reasonable long-term durability. Rotating-hinge designs should be used whenever possible to reduce the risk of aseptic loosening. Further comparative long-term analyses with other techniques or implants could inform us about the best treatment method.

Primary constrained and hinged total knee arthroplasty: 2- and 5-year revision risk compared with unconstrained total knee arthroplasty: a report on 401 cases from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register 1994-2017.

Background and purpose - The number of primary, highly constrained knee arthroplasty implants has increased with a theoretically increased risk of early failure. Therefore we analyzed the risk of all revision following total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in patients receiving a hinged or condylar constrained knee (CCK) compared with a conventional unconstrained TKA. Patients and methods - The analyses included 401 primary highly constrained or hinged implants from 1994 to 2017. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were used to evaluate time to first revision with a maximum follow-up of 20 years. Cox regression was used to calculate hazard ratio (HR) comparing condylar constrained knee (CCK), hinged, and unconstrained TKA. Results - Kaplan-Meier estimated prosthesis survival after 2 years was 94.8% (95% CI 91.4-98.2) and 93.5% after 5 years for the primary CCK and 91.0% (CI 86.6-95.4) after 2 years and 85.5% after 5 years for the primary hinged TKA. Adjusted for sex, age groups, diagnosis, time period, previous surgery, and surgery time HR was 1.4 (CI 0.8-2.3) for the CCK and 2.4 (CI 1.6-3.7) for the hinged implants. The most common cause of revision in hinged implants was infection: 14 of 22 revisions. When excluding infection as revision cause, there were no differences in survival between the implant types. Estimated survival excluding infection revisions at 5 years was 96% for unconstrained, CCK, and hinged primary TKA implants. Interpretation - Primary rotating hinge total knee arthroplasty had a higher risk of revision compared with conventional TKA after 2 and 5 years' follow-up. Infection was the most common cause of revision. When excluding infection revisions from the survival analysis, hinged and CCK implants had similar performance to unconstrained TKA.