Condylar constrained and rotating hinged implants in revision knee arthroplasty show similar survivorship and clinical outcome: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: In revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) ligament instability and bone defects might require more constraint implants such as a condylar constrained knee (CCK) or rotating hinged knee (RHK). When both implants are suitable, the choice remains controversial. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the survivorship and clinical outcome between CCK and RHK in revision TKA. METHODS: Systematic literature research was performed. Studies analysing the clinical outcome and/or survivorship of CCK and/or RHK in revision TKA were included. Clinical outcomes included the Knee Society Score, both clinical (KSCS) and functional (KSFS), range of motion (ROM) and reoperations. Survival was defined as the time free from removal or revision of the femoral and/or tibial component. RESULTS: A total of 40 articles analysing 4.555 knees were included. Survival did not differ between RHK and CCK implants (p = 0.6058), with, respectively, 91.6% and 89.8% survival after 5 years. Postoperative KSCS and KSFS were, respectively, 79.2 (SD 10.7) and 61.1 (SD 21.8) for the CCK group. Similar scores were noted for the RHK group with a KSCS of 80.2 (SD 14.1) and KSFS of 58.5 (SD 17.3). Postoperative ROM was similar for CCK (105.3°, SD 17.1°) and RHK patients (104.1°, SD 16.9°). CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis revealed that both survivorship and clinical outcome are similar for CCK and RHK patients for whom both designs are technically suitable and indicated. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

Investigating the autoregulation of applied blood flow restriction training pressures in healthy, physically active adults: an intervention study evaluating acute training responses and safety.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the effects of autoregulated (AUTO) and non-autoregulated (NAUTO) blood flow restriction (BFR) application on adverse effects, performance, cardiovascular and perceptual responses during resistance exercise. METHODS: Fifty-six healthy participants underwent AUTO and NAUTO BFR resistance exercise in a randomised crossover design using a training session with fixed amount of repetitions and a training session until volitional failure. Cardiovascular parameters, rate of perceived effort (RPE), rate of perceived discomfort (RPD) and number of repetitions were investigated after training, while the presence of delayed onset muscle soreness (DOMS) was verified 24 hours post-session. Adverse events during or following training were also monitored. RESULTS: AUTO outperformed NAUTO in the failure protocol (p<0.001), while AUTO scored significantly lower for DOMS 24 hours after exercise (p<0.001). Perceptions of effort and discomfort were significantly higher in NAUTO compared with AUTO in both fixed (RPE: p=0.014, RPD: p<0.001) and failure protocol (RPE: p=0.028, RPD: p<0.001). Sixteen adverse events (7.14%) were recorded, with a sevenfold incidence in the fixed protocol for NAUTO compared with AUTO (NAUTO: n=7 vs AUTO: n=1) and five (NAUTO) vs three (AUTO) adverse events in the failure protocol. No significant differences in cardiovascular parameters were found comparing both pressure applications. CONCLUSION: Autoregulation appears to enhance safety and performance in both fixed and failure BFR-training protocols. AUTO BFR training did not seem to affect cardiovascular stress differently, but was associated with lower DOMS, perceived effort and discomfort compared with NAUTO. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04996680.