A comparison of clinical thresholds for revision following total and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.

Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) has higher revision rates than total knee arthroplasty (TKA). As revision of UKA may be less technically demanding than revision TKA, UKA patients with poor functional outcomes may be more likely to be offered revision than TKA patients with similar outcomes. The aim of this study was to compare clinical thresholds for revisions between TKA and UKA using revision incidence and patient-reported outcomes, in a large, matched cohort at early, mid-, and late-term follow-up. Analyses were performed on propensity score-matched patient cohorts of TKAs and UKAs (2:1) registered in the New Zealand Joint Registry between 1 January 1999 and 31 December 2019 with an Oxford Knee Score (OKS) response at six months (n, TKA: 16,774; UKA: 8,387), five years (TKA: 6,718; UKA: 3,359), or ten years (TKA: 3,486; UKA: 1,743). Associations between OKS and revision within two years following the score were examined. Thresholds were compared using receiver operating characteristic analysis. Reasons for aseptic revision were compared using cumulative incidence with competing risk. Fewer TKA patients with 'poor' outcomes (≤ 25) subsequently underwent revision compared with UKA at six months (5.1% vs 19.6%; p < 0.001), five years (4.3% vs 12.5%; p < 0.001), and ten years (6.4% vs 15.0%; p = 0.024). Compared with TKA, the relative risk for UKA was 2.5-times higher for 'unknown' reasons, bearing dislocations, and disease progression. Compared with TKA, more UKA patients with poor outcomes underwent revision from early to long-term follow-up, and were more likely to undergo revision for 'unknown' reasons, which suggest a lower clinical threshold for UKA. For UKA, revision risk was higher for bearing dislocations and disease progression. There is supporting evidence that the higher revision UKA rates are associated with lower clinical thresholds for revision and additional modes of failure.

The lifetime revision risk of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.

AIMS: Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) has a higher risk of revision than total knee arthroplasty (TKA), particularly for younger patients. The outcome of knee arthroplasty is typically defined as implant survival or revision incidence after a defined number of years. This can be difficult for patients to conceptualize. We aimed to calculate the 'lifetime risk' of revision for UKA as a more meaningful estimate of risk projection over a patient's remaining lifetime, and to compare this to TKA. METHODS: Incidence of revision and mortality for all primary UKAs performed from 1999 to 2019 (n = 13,481) was obtained from the New Zealand Joint Registry (NZJR). Lifetime risk of revision was calculated for patients and stratified by age, sex, and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade. RESULTS: The lifetime risk of revision was highest in the youngest age group (46 to 50 years; 40.4%) and decreased sequentially to the oldest (86 to 90 years; 3.7%). Across all age groups, lifetime risk of revision was higher for females (ranging from 4.3% to 43.4% vs males 2.9% to 37.4%) and patients with a higher ASA grade (ASA 3 to 4, ranging from 8.8% to 41.2% vs ASA 1 1.8% to 29.8%). The lifetime risk of revision for UKA was double that of TKA across all age groups (ranging from 3.7% to 40.4% for UKA, and 1.6% to 22.4% for TKA). The higher risk of revision in younger patients was associated with aseptic loosening in both sexes and pain in females. Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) accounted for 4% of all UKA revisions, in contrast with 27% for TKA; the risk of PJI was higher for males than females for both procedures. CONCLUSION: Lifetime risk of revision may be a more meaningful measure of arthroplasty outcomes than implant survival at defined time periods. This study highlights the higher lifetime risk of UKA revision for younger patients, females, and those with a higher ASA grade, which can aid with patient counselling prior to UKA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(6):672-679.

Human Spinal Bone Dust as a Potential Local Autograft: In Vitro Potent Anabolic Effect on Human Osteoblasts.

STUDY DESIGN: In vitro Study. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect that factors released from human posterior spinal bone dust have on primary human osteoblast growth and maturation. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Bone dust, created during spinal fusion surgeries, has the potential to be used as an autologous bone graft by providing a source of viable autologous osteoblasts and mesenchymal stem cells with osteogenic potential. Till date, no information is available on whether bone dust also provides a source of anabolic factors with the potential to enhance osteoblast proliferation and maturation, which would enhance its therapeutic potential. METHODS: Bone dust was collected from consenting patients undergoing elective posterior spinal fusion surgeries, and primary human osteoblasts were cultured from patients undergoing elective hip or knee arthroplasty. Growth factors and cytokines released by bone dust were quantified using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Primary human osteoblast proliferation and gene expression in response to bone dust were assessed using H-thymidine incorporation and real-time polymerase chain reaction, respectively. RESULTS: Human bone dust released anabolic cytokines (IL-1ß and IL-6) and growth factors (TGF-ß, VEGF, FGF-Basic, and PDGF-BB) in increasing concentrations over a 7-day period. In vitro, the anabolic factors released by bone dust increased osteoblast proliferation by 7-fold, compared with osteoblasts cultured alone. In addition, the factors released from bone dust up-regulated a number of osteoblastic genes integral to osteoblast differentiation, maturation, and angiogenesis. CONCLUSION: This study is the first to demonstrate that human posterior spinal bone dust released anabolic factors that potently enhance osteoblast proliferation and the expression of genes that favor bone healing and bone union. As bone dust is anabolic and its harvest is fast, simple, and safe to perform, spinal surgeons should be encouraged to 'recycle' bone dust and harness the regenerative potential of this free autologous bone graft. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: N/A.