Cementless medial Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement. Five-year results from an independent series.

BACKGROUND: Unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) is a common treatment option for patients with advanced medial compartment knee arthritis. The Oxford UKR (OUKR) is the most commonly used implant for partial knee replacement. A cementless Oxford prosthesis was introduced in 2004 aiming to reduce the revision rate by potentially reducing radiolucencies as well as errors of cementation associated with the cemented prosthesis. Whilst results from the designer centre have been reported, there is little independent clinical evidence of outcomes. The aim of this study was to evaluate the survival of the cementless OUKR in a single surgeon series at an independent centre and to assess clinical and radiographic outcomes. METHODS: All patients who received a cementless medial OUKR and had a minimum of five-year follow-up were included in the series. The Oxford knee score was used to evaluate patient outcomes at five years postoperatively. Survival rates, complications and evidence of radiolucencies on plain radiographs were also reviewed. RESULTS: One hundred and fifty-eight cementless medial OUKR were implanted in 126 patients. Three patients died and four knees were revised. The five-year survival was 97.4% and the median Oxford knee score was 43 at five years postoperatively. No Complete radiolucent lines were observed on radiographs at one year. Four tibial components subsided. CONCLUSIONS: This independent series shows that low revision rates and excellent results can be achieved with the use of the cementless OUKR at five years. Early subsidence of the tibial component, which is specific to the cementless prosthesis, warrants further investigation.

Meniscal allograft transplantation after meniscectomy: clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.

PURPOSE: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of meniscal allograft transplantation (MAT) after meniscal injury and subsequent meniscectomy. METHODS: Systematic review of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness analysis. RESULTS: There is considerable evidence from observational studies, of improvement in symptoms after meniscal allograft transplantation, but we found only one small pilot trial with a randomised comparison with a control group that received non-surgical care. MAT has not yet been proven to be chondroprotective. Cost-effectiveness analysis is not possible due to a lack of data on the effectiveness of MAT compared to non-surgical care. CONCLUSION: The benefits of MAT include symptomatic relief and restoration of at least some previous activities, which will be reflected in utility values and hence in quality-adjusted life years, and in the longer term, prevention or delay of osteoarthritis, and avoidance or postponement of some knee replacements, with resulting savings. It is likely to be cost-effective, but this cannot be proven on the basis of present evidence. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

Autograft or allograft for reconstruction of anterior cruciate ligament: a health economics perspective.

PURPOSE: To assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of allografts versus autografts in the reconstruction of anterior cruciate ligaments. METHODS: Systematic review of comparative clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness analysis. RESULTS: Both autograft and allograft reconstruction are highly effective. Recent studies show little difference in failure rates between autografts and allografts (about 6% and 7%, respectively). In cost-effectiveness analysis, the price differential is the main factor, making autografts the first choice. However, there will be situations, particularly in revision ACL reconstruction, where an allograft may be preferred, or may be the only reasonable option available. CONCLUSION: In ACL reconstruction, clinical results with autografts are as good as or slightly better than with allografts. Allografts cost more, indicating that autografts are more cost-effective and should usually be first choice. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.

Allografts in reconstruction of the posterior cruciate ligament: a health economics perspective.

PURPOSE: To review the relative cost-effectiveness of allografts and autografts in reconstruction of the posterior cruciate ligament. METHODS: Systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis. RESULTS: The available evidence does not show any significant difference in clinical effectiveness between autografts and allografts. Given that, only a cost analysis is provided, which shows that allografts are more costly. CONCLUSION: Given the lack of any benefit of allografts over autografts, autografts should be preferred on cost grounds, if available. However, there may be situations where an allograft is indicated, for example, in multiple ligament reconstructions. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

Is meniscal allograft transplantation chondroprotective? A systematic review of radiological outcomes.

PURPOSE: The primary aim of this systematic review was to examine the hypothesis that meniscal allograft transplantation is chondroprotective by identifying and appraising studies that have assessed the progression of osteoarthritis following meniscal allograft transplantation. The secondary aim was to identify and appraise radiological measures of meniscal allograft integrity following surgery. METHODS: Clinical studies on human participants undergoing meniscal allograft transplantation with a minimum follow-up of 6 months were included. The primary outcome measure was any radiological osteoarthritis progression measure. Secondary outcomes included magnetic resonance measures of meniscal integrity including meniscal size, shape, healing, extrusion and signal intensity. RESULTS: Thirty-eight studies with 1056 allografts were included. The weighted mean joint space loss was 0.032 mm at 4.5 years across 11 studies. Other radiological classification systems were reported in small numbers and with variable progression rates. Meniscal extrusion was present in nearly all cases, but was not associated with clinical or other radiological outcomes. Meniscal healing rates were high, although the size, shape and signal intensity were commonly altered from that of the native meniscus. The quality of the included studies was low, with a high risk of bias. CONCLUSION: There is some evidence to support the hypothesis that meniscal allograft transplantation reduces the progression of osteoarthritis, although it is unlikely to be as effective as the native meniscus. If this is proven, there may be a role for prophylactic meniscal allograft transplantation in selected patients. Well-designed randomised controlled trials are needed to further test this hypothesis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic review of studies, Level IV.

Arthroscopic Meniscal Allograft Transplantation With Soft-Tissue Fixation Through Bone Tunnels.

Meniscal allograft transplantation improves clinical outcomes for patients with symptomatic meniscus-deficient knees. We describe an established arthroscopic technique for meniscal allograft transplantation without the need for bone fixation of the meniscal horns. After preparation of the meniscal bed, the meniscus is parachuted into the knee through a silicone cannula and the meniscal horns are fixed with sutures through bone tunnels. The body of the meniscus is then fixed with a combination of all-inside and inside-out sutures. This technique is reliable and reproducible and has clinical outcomes comparable with those of bone plug fixation techniques.

Meniscal allograft transplantation in a symptomatic meniscal deficient knee: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: The primary objective of this study was to perform an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of meniscal allograft transplantation using patient reported outcome measures at final follow-up as the outcome tool. The secondary objective was to provide an up to date review of the indications, associated procedures, operative technique, rehabilitation, failures, complications, radiological outcomes, and graft healing. METHODS: Medline, Embase and CENTRAL databases, trials registries, and Web-of Science were searched for studies using pre-defined eligibility criteria. Included studies were reviewed with Lysholm, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) and Tegner scores, failures and complications pooled. Studies were also qualitatively assessed. RESULTS: There were 1,332 patients (1,374 knees) in 35 studies eligible for analysis. The mean follow-up was 5.1 years. Across all studies, Lysholm scores improved from 55.7 to 81.3, IKDC scores from 47.0 to 70.0, and Tegner activity scores from 3.1 to 4.7 between pre-operative and final follow-up assessments, respectively. The mean failure rate across all studies was 10.6% at 4.8 years, and complication rate was 13.9% at 4.7 years. There is a high risk of bias across the studies due to study design and missing outcomes. CONCLUSION: Based on current evidence, meniscal allograft transplantation appears to be an effective intervention for patients with a symptomatic meniscal deficient knee. This should ideally be confirmed with a randomised controlled trial. There is not currently enough evidence to determine whether it is chondroprotective.

Risk factors associated with the early failure of cannulated hip screws.

AIM: We report our experience with cannulated hip screws and analyse the risk factors associated with their early failure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients undergoing cannulated hip screws at a single UK Major Trauma Centre between November 2009 and November 2011 were retrospectively identified. Radiographs were analysed for fracture displacement, successful reduction, and screw configuration. Risk factors predicting early failure, defined as re-operation within 6 months, were identified using logistic regression models. RESULTS: 340 patients were included in the study, 70% were female and the mean age was 81 years. After six months 23% patients had undergone revision surgery. Initial fracture displacement (p = 0.02) and unsuccessful lateral reduction (p = 0.04) were significant predictors of early failure. CONCLUSION: Initial fracture displacement and successful fracture reduction are the most important factors related to the risk of early re-operation. We found no evidence that screw configuration is an important predictor of outcome.