Mobile-bearing Implants Research Articles

Clinical Benefit of Robotic-Assisted Total Knee Arthroplasty over Conventional Total Knee Arthroplasty When Using Mobile-Bearing Implants.

Background and Objectives: As a treatment modality for advanced knee osteoarthritis, total knee arthroplasty is well established and has been performed on many patients over time. To improve surgical outcomes, fixed-bearing implant insertion with robotic-assisted TKA has been introduced; however, the insertion of mobile-bearing (MB) implants with the same method is challenging. The aim of this study was to compare the short-term postoperative follow-up outcomes of MB implant insertion using a robotic-assisted TKA system and conventional TKA. Materials and Methods: We investigated functional improvement in the knees of 60 patients who underwent the insertion of MB implants using either robotic-assisted TKA or conventional TKA. Isokinetic muscular function, range of motion, the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index score, visual analog scale (VAS) score, and Knee Society Score (KSS) were measured 6 months after surgery. The statistical analysis of outcome measurements was performed using the Mann-Whitney U test and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Results: Some isokinetic muscular functions, as well as Knee Society Scores (pain and function) and VAS scores, were significantly higher in patients who underwent MB insertion with robotic-assisted TKA than in those who underwent conventional TKA. Conclusions: When an MB implant is inserted using a robotic-assisted TKA system, a better surgical outcome can be expected.

Mid-term survivorship and clinical outcomes of revision knee arthroplasty using a mobile bearing tibial tray: A single-center registry review

BackgroundRevision total knee arthroplasty can successfully restore function and relieve pain for patients with failed knee replacements. Mobile-bearing implants were designed to provide greater congruency between the implant and the polyethylene insert. The goal of this study was to review the clinical outcomes and survivorship for a revision mobile-bearing tibial design. MethodsA retrospective outcomes review was conducted to assess survivorship and clinical outcomes for a mobile bearing tibial tray, used with metaphyseal sleeves, in revision total knee arthroplasty. ResultsAt time of furthest follow-up, KM estimates (95% CI; n with further follow-up) for all-cause revision were 82.5% (75.8%; 87.5%; 42) at 7 years for the clinical assumption (CA), and 88.5% (84.4%,91.6%; 53) at 13 years for the registry assumption (RA). For revision of the tray as the endpoint, survivorship estimates were 93.4% (87.0%,96.7%; 42) at 7 years for CA, and 96.2% (93.2%,97.9%; 53) at 13 years for RA. ConclusionIn this single-center registry evaluation, we found excellent mid-term survivorship and clinical outcomes for a mobile-bearing tibial tray used with metaphyseal sleeves in revision total knee arthroplasty.

No difference in mobile and fixed bearing partial knee arthroplasty in octogenarians: a clinical trial

BackgroundA clinical trial comparing MB (mobile-bearing) versus FB (fixed-bearing) in medial partial knee arthroplasty (PKA) in octagenarians has been conducted. The focus of the present study was on PROMs, range of motion (ROM), implant positioning and implants survivorship. The hypothesis of the present study was that MB implants performed better than FB in PKA in octogenarians.MethodsThe first group received FB PKA-PPK®; the second received MB PKA-Oxford. Patients were not randomly allocated. The following PROMs were administered at T0 (pre-operatively), T1 (1 year after surgery), and T2 (3 years after surgery): visual analogue scale (VAS), Knee Society Score (KSS) and Oxford Knee Score (OKS). Data regarding the implant survivorship and ROM were also collected. Furthermore, the following radiographic parameters were measured: Femoral component varus/valgus; Tibial component varus/valgus; Anteroposterior slope.ResultsAt T0, 28 patients were included in the FB and 33 in the MB group. The surgical time was shorter in the FB group (p < 0.001). No difference between FB and MB in ROM, VAS, KSS, and OKS at each follow-up (p > 0.05). No difference was found in implant positioning (p > 0.05). At last follow-up, FB group reported three failures caused by aseptic loosening. Four failures were observed in the MB cohort: two for bearing dislocation and two for aseptic loosening. The Kaplan–Meier Curve found no differences in implant survivorship.ConclusionsAccording to the main findings of the present clinical trial, MB implants performed similar to FB in PKA in octogenarians. The FB group demonstrated shorted surgical time. No difference was found in patient reported outcome measures, ROM, implant positioning, and survivorship.Level of evidenceLevel II, prospective study.

Total knee replacement survivorship by Design Philosophy: are we ignoring medial pivot design? Analysis based on the UK National Joint Registry.

The UK National Joint Registry(NJR) has not reported total knee replacement (TKR) survivorship based on design phi- losophy alone, unlike its international counterparts. We report outcomes of implant survivorship based on design phi- losophy using data from NJR's 2020 annual report. All TKR implants with an identifiable design philosophy from NJR data were included. Cumulative revision data for cruciate-retaining(CR), posterior stabilised(PS), mobile-bearing(MB) design philosophies was derived from merged NJR data. Cumulative revision data for individual brands of implants with the medial pivot (MP) philosophy were used to calculate overall survivorship for this design philosophy. The all-cause revision was used as the endpoint and calculated to 15 years follow-up with Kaplan-Meier curves. 1,144,384 TKRs were included. CR is the most popular design philosophy (67.4%), followed by PS(23.1%), MB (6.9%) and least commonly MP (2.6%). MP and CR implants showed the best survivorship (95.7% and 95.6% respectively) at 15 years which is statistically significant at, and beyond, 10 years. Observed survivorship was lower at all time points with the PS and MB implants (94.5% for both designs at 15 years). While all design philosophies considered in this study survive well, CR and MP designs offer statistically superior survivorship at and beyond 10 years. MP design performs better than CR beyond 13 years yet, remain the least popular design philosophy used. Publishing data based on knee arthroplasty design phi- losophy would help surgeons when making decisions on implant choice.

How long do ankle arthroplasties last?

Despite the increasing numbers of ankle arthroplasties, there are limited studies on their survival and comparisons between different implants. The primary aim of this study was to determine the failure rates of primary ankle arthroplasties commonly used in the UK. A data linkage study combined National Joint Registry (NJR) data and NHS Digital data. The primary outcome of failure was defined as the removal or exchange of any components of the implanted device. Life tables and Kaplan-Meier survival charts were used to illustrate survivorship. Cox proportional hazards regression models were fitted to compare failure rates between 1 April 2010 and 31 December 2018. Overall, 5,562 primary ankle arthroplasties were recorded in the NJR. Linked data show a one-year survivorship of 98.8% (95% confidence interval (CI) 98.4% to 99.0%), five-year survival in 2,725 patients of 90.2% (95% CI 89.2% to 91.1%), and ten-year survival in 199 patients of 86.2% (95% CI 84.6% to 87.6%). The five-year survival for fixed-bearing implants was 94.3% (95% CI 91.3% to 96.3%) compared to 89.4% (95% CI 88.3% to 90.4%) for mobile-bearing implants. A Cox regression model for all implants with over 100 implantations using the implant with the best survivorship (Infinity) as the reference, only the STAR (hazard ratio (HR) 1.60 (95% CI 0.87 to 2.96)) and INBONE (HR 0.38 (95% CI 0.05 to 2.84)) did not demonstrate worse survival at three and five years. Ankle arthroplasties in the UK have a five-year survival rate of 90.2%, which is lower than recorded on the NJR, because we have shown that approximately one-third of ankle arthroplasty failures are not reported to the NJR. There are statistically significant differences in survival between different implants. Fixed-bearing implants appear to demonstrate higher survivorship than mobile-bearing implants.

SIMILAR SURVIVORSHIP FOR UNCEMENTED MOBILE-BEARING AND CEMENTED FIXED-BEARING MEDIAL UNICOMPARTMENTAL KNEE ARTHROPLASTY BUT DIFFERENT REASONS FOR REVISION

Source of the study: University of Auckland, Auckland, New ZealandUnicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is effective for patients with isolated compartment osteoarthritis, however the procedure has higher revision rates. Long-term survivorship and accurate characterisation of revision reasons are limited by a lack of long-term data and standardised revision definitions. We aimed to identify survivorship, risk factors and revision reasons in a large UKA cohort with up to 20 years follow-up.Patient, implant and revision details were recorded through clinical and radiological review for 2,137 consecutive patients undergoing primary medial UKA across Auckland, Canterbury, Counties Manukau and Waitematā DHB between 2000 and 2017. Revision reasons were determined from review of clinical, laboratory, and radiological records for each patient using a standardised protocol. To ensure complete follow-up data was cross-referenced with the New Zealand Joint Registry to identify patients undergoing subsequent revision outside the hospitals. Implant survival, revision risk and revision reasons were analysed using Cox proportional-hazards and competing risk analyses.Implant survivorship at 15 years was comparable for cemented fixed-bearing (cemFB; 91%) and uncemented mobile-bearing (uncemMB; 91%), but lower for cemented mobile-bearing (cemMB; 80%) implants. There was higher incidence of aseptic loosening with cemented implants (3-4% vs. 0.4% uncemented, p&lt;0.01), osteoarthritis (OA) progression with cemMB implants (9% vs. 3% cemFB/uncemMB; p&lt;0.05) and bearing dislocations with uncemMB implants (3% vs. 2% cemMB, p=0.02). Compared with the oldest patients (≥75 years), there was a nearly two-fold increase in risk for those aged 55-64 (hazard ratio 1.9; confidence interval 1.1–3.3, p=0.03). No association was found with gender, BMI or ASA.Cemented mobile-bearing implants and younger age were linked to lower implant survivorship. These were associated with disease progression and bearing dislocations. The use of cemented fixed-bearing and uncemented mobile-bearing designs have superior comparable long-term survivorship.

Mobile Bearing versus Fixed Bearing for Unicompartmental Arthroplasty in Monocompartmental Osteoarthritis of the Knee: A Meta-Analysis.

Introduction: Whether mobile-bearing (MB) unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) performs better than fixed-bearing (FB) implants in patients with monocompartmental osteoarthritis (OA) still remains unclear. Therefore, a meta-analysis comparing MB versus FB for UKA was conducted to investigate the possible advantages of MB versus FB in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), range of motion (ROM), and complications. We hypothesised that the MB design performs better than FB. Methods: This systematic review was conducted according to the 2020 PRISMA guidelines. In December 2021, PubMed, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and Embase were accessed, with no time constraints. All the clinical investigations comparing MB versus FB bearing for UKA were accessed. Only studies published in peer-reviewed journals were considered. Studies reporting data on revision settings were excluded, as were those combining unicompartmental and total knee arthroplasty. Results: Data from 25 studies (4696 patients) were collected; 58% (2724 of 4696 patients) were women. The mean length of follow-up was 45.8 ± 43.2. The mean age of the patients was 65.0 ± 5.6 years. No difference was found in range of motion (p = 0.05), Knee Scoring System (p = 0.9), function subscale (p = 0.2), and Oxford Knee Score (p = 0.4). No difference was found in the rate of revision (p = 0.2), aseptic loosening (p = 0.9), deep infections (p = 0.99), fractures (p = 0.6), and further extension of OA to the contralateral joint compartment (p = 0.2). Conclusion: The present meta-analysis failed to identify the possible superiority of the MB implants over the FB for UKA in patients with monocompartmental knee osteoarthritis. Long observational investigations are required to evaluate possible long-term complications and implant survivorship. These results should be interpreted within the limitations of the present study.

Midterm Outcomes in Lateral Unicompartment Knee Replacement: The Effect of Patient Age and Bearing Choice.

Isolated lateral compartment knee osteoarthritis (OA) affects between 7 and 10% of patients with knee OA. Although lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is an accepted treatment to manage this condition, it is performed relatively infrequently. The aim of this study was to evaluate the mid-term survivorship, radiographic outcomes, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). We performed a retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database of consecutive isolated lateral UKAs performed by a single surgeon at an academic institution between September 2007 and December 2015. Our primary outcome was failure defined as revision surgery to total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Secondary outcomes included any additional surgery for any other reason. Forty-nine consecutive patients (27 females) with median age of 54.7 years (45.2-82.2) met the inclusion criteria. The survival rate for the whole cohort was 86.1% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 73.2-99.0) at 10 years as defined by conversion to TKA. There were a total of four lateral UKAs (all mobile bearings) revised to TKAs. The entire cohort demonstrated statistically significant improvements from preoperative PROMs compared with the most recent postoperative PROMs including the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, and Tegner activity scale at a median 8.8 (1.7-12.2) years follow-up. Patients with mobile bearing underwent higher revision to TKA and reoperation for all indications compared with fixed-bearing lateral UKA. In this relatively young cohort, lateral UKA yielded acceptable long-term survival and satisfactory improvement in functional outcomes. Patients who had fixed-bearing implants had similar improvement and trended toward lower revision rates than those with mobile-bearing implants. Level III therapeutic: retrospective Study was performed.

CORR Insights®: 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.

CORR Insights®: 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.

No significant clinical and radiological differences between fixed versus mobile bearing total knee replacement using the same semi-constrained implant type: a randomized controlled trial with mean 10years follow-up.

The aim of this study was to compare the long-term clinical and radiological results between fixed (FB) and mobile bearing (MB) implants with identical design from the same manufacturer. From March 2007 to May 2009, we recruited 160 patients in a prospective, single centered, randomized controlled trial. The authors compared 81 FB total knee arthroplasty (TKA) versus 79MB with medial compartment osteoarthritis. The same posterior stabilized HLS Noetos knee prosthesis (CORIN) was used in all patients. The two groups only differed by the tibial insert (fixed or mobile). The authors compared the postoperative Knee Society Score (KSS), the passive clinical and active radiological knee flexion, the implant survivorship, the complications, and the presence of radiolucent lines. At mean 10.5years' follow-up (range 8-12.1years) no significant differences were found in clinical scores (KSS (p = 0.54), pain score (p = 0.77), stair climbing (p = 0.44), passive maximum flexion (p = 0.5)) or for radiological analyses (maximum active radiological flexion (p = 0.06), presence of progressive radiolucent lines (5 (MB group) versus 6 (FB group); p = 0.75)) between groups. No significant difference was found in overall implant survivorship (82% (MB group) versus 78% (FB group) p = 0.58) or complication rate (p = 0.32) at the last follow-up. No significant clinical and radiological differences were found between fixed and mobile bearing TKA using the same semi-constrained implant type with comparable overall survivorship. The choice between a fixed or mobile bearing implant should be based on surgeon preference and experience with the selected implant. Prospective randomized controlled trial, Level II.

Multi-Segment Foot and Ankle Gait Kinematics Following Total Ankle Arthroplasty

Category:Ankle Arthritis; Ankle.Introduction/Purpose:Ankle arthritis is a painful disease resulting in limited function, mobility, and quality of life.1 Total ankle arthroplasty (TAA) a widely accepted treatment to reduce pain while maintaining joint motion.2,3 There are two common types of implants: fixed bearing (FB) and mobile bearing (MB). Comparisons of these implants have shown similar patient and clinical outcomes;4 however, post-operative gait kinematics from a multi-segment foot and ankle model have not been compared. This study assessed multi-segmental foot and ankle gait kinematics between persons following TAA with MB and FB implants and compared them to control data of adult ambulators without lower extremity pathology.Methods:This was a prospective analysis of persons who had previously underwent TAA with a MB (n=6; average follow-up period of 2.5 years) implant. After consenting to the IRB-approved study, participants were fitted with reflective markers for the Milwaukee Foot Model (MFM).5 Participants walked barefoot along a 30-foot walkway at a comfortable, self-selected pace for a minimum of ten trials while twelve infrared motion capture cameras recorded data. Kinematic data from the MB group and historical data from a FB population who underwent the same protocol with the MFM (n=7; average follow-up period of 2 years) were compared to control data (n=37). Welch’s two-tailed t-tests were used to calculate statistical significance at an alpha level of 0.05. Deviation from control data was compared between both implant groups.Results:In the MB group, sagittal motion of the hindfoot, forefoot, and hallux were significantly different from control for the majority of stance. The only significant MB group swing phase differences were early swing sagittal kinematics in the tibia, forefoot, and hallux segments. The FB data differed significantly for the majority of stance phase for sagittal tibia motion, all hindfoot planes, sagittal and coronal forefoot motion, and all hallux planes. The FB group kinematics also significantly differed throughout most of swing phase across all planes and segments, except coronal hindfoot motion. All FB kinematic data deviated further from control than the MB data except stance phase coronal tibia and transverse forefoot motion, where the data overlapped (Figure 1).Conclusion:Multi-segment foot and ankle gait kinematics following TAA showed the MB implant better restores healthy ambulatory motion than the FB implant. Abnormal stance phase kinematics lead to altered joint loading. This can accelerate adjacent joint arthritis, which has been seen following ankle arthrodesis.6 Both populations showed diminished forefoot plantarflexion throughout gait, compensating for decreased hindfoot dorsiflexion. Because the joints are not heavily loaded during swing phase, the primary concerns of alterations are regarding ground clearance and foot position prior to the next step. The MB implant better restores normal gait, minimizing compensations and likely decreasing arthritis-inducing stress on adjacent joints.

Survivorship of fixed vs mobile bearing unicompartmental knee replacement: A systematic review and meta-analysis of sixty-four studies and National Joint Registries

BackgroundUnicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) prostheses can use fixed (FB) or mobile bearing (MB) constructs. We compared survivorship and failure modes of both designs. MethodsThe inclusion criteria were studies published between 2005 and 2020 with minimum average follow-up of five years reporting the survival and/or number of revisions of specific designs in medial and lateral UKRs. Pooled rate of revision per 100 patient years (PTIR) was estimated using a random effects model. ResultsSeventy cohorts of 17,405 UKRs with weighted mean follow-up of 7.3 years (0.1–29.4 years) were included. A total of 170,923 UKRs were identified in registry reports at a weighted mean implant survival time of 15.4 years. PTIR in MB UKR versus FB UKR was similar [1.45 vs 1.40, (p = 0.8)].In cohort studies, the overall PTIR for MB was also similar to FB [1.03 vs 0.78, (p = 0.1)]. For medial UKR, the PTIR for MB was marginally greater but not significantly different to FB [0.96 vs 0.81, (p = 0.3)], whilst for lateral UKR, the PTIR for MB was significantly worse than for FB [2.20 vs 0.72, (p < 0.01)]. Polyethylene wear is more common in FB implants, whilst MB implants are revised more often for bearing dislocation. ConclusionsOverall implant survival in mid- to long-term studies is similar for MB versus FB medial UKRs. MB have a four-fold higher risk of revision in comparison to FB when used for lateral UKR.

Hindfoot Alignment after Total Ankle Replacement

Category:Ankle Arthritis; AnkleIntroduction/Purpose:End-stage ankle arthritis can involve misalignment of the ankle in both the coronal and sagittal planes as up to reported 33% to 44% of patients who present for total ankle replacement have greater than 10° of coronal plane deformity. Improvements in both the design and surgical technique for total ankle replacements (TAR) have allowed surgeons to tackle the most challenging of multiplanar ankle deformities. Normalization of the sagittal and coronal alignment is key in improving survivorship and functional outcomes in TAR. In the present study, we analyzed how both the ankle and hindfoot alignment for both a fixed-bearing and mobile bearing TAR system changes over time. Specifically, we measured coronal and sagittal alignment of both the ankle and hindfoot complex. We hypothesize that both significant differences would be seen between all time points and pre-operative radiographs, and that these differences would not change over time.Methods:A retrospective study performed by a single orthopaedic surgeon was performed on two independent groups of patients undergoing two different systems for total ankle replacement: Zimmer TAR (lateral-approach, fixed-bearing, n=89) and Hintegra (anterior approach, mobile-bearing, n=81). We noted specific demographic data and radiographic data were measured including: Hindfoot alignment view angle (HAV), Hindfoot alignment distance (HAVD), tibiotalar ratio, α angle and β angle. These were measured pre-operatively, and 6 months, 12 months, and 24 months post-operatively. Within-group comparisons were performed using one-way repeated-measures ANOVA (1-w rANOVA), analyzing temporal course of clinical data (comparisons between different time points, e.g. T0vsT6vsT12vsT24) within the Hintegra and Zimmer groups. To compare the time course of clinical measures between the two groups, 2-w rANOVAs were performed for SA, SD, TT ratio, α and β angle. Specifically, time*group interaction was tested.Results:At the ankle joint itself, as measured by the α and β angles (p>.05), the position of the components remains relatively similar in both the fixed and mobile bearing TAR over the course of 24 months. The sagittal alignment, as measured by the TT ratio, demonstrated a posterior shifting of the talus in the mobile bearing group (p=.036). Though the fixed and mobile- bearing TAR had both significant hindfoot alignment improvement between the pre-op radiographs and twenty-four months, over time, the fixed-bearing ankle had a significant increase in both the HAV and HAVD (p<.001), suggesting a dynamism of the hindfoot in the fixed-bearing ankle.Conclusion:Correcting coronal and sagittal alignment is important for the long-term survivorship of a TAR. The fixed and mobile-bearing implants had maintained coronal and sagittal alignment in the short term, the temporal course of the fixed-bearing ankle showed an increased in the valgus positioning of the hindfoot.

Hindfoot Alignment after Total Ankle Replacement

Category:Ankle, Ankle ArthritisIntroduction/Purpose:End-stage ankle arthritis can involve misalignment of the ankle in both the coronal and sagittal planes as up to reported 33% to 44% of patients who present for total ankle replacement have greater than 10° of coronal plane deformity. Normalization of the sagittal and coronal alignment is key in improving survivorship and functional outcomes in TAR. In the present study, we analyzed how both the ankle and hindfoot alignment for both a fixed-bearing and mobile bearing TAR system changes over time. Specifically, we measured coronal and sagittal alignment of both the ankle and hindfoot complex. We hypothesize that both significant differences would be seen between all time points and pre-operative radiographs, and that these differences would not change over time.Methods:A retrospective study performed by a single orthopaedic surgeon was performed on two independent groups of patients undergoing two different systems for total ankle replacement: Zimmer TAR (lateral-approach, fixed-bearing, n=89) and Hintegra (anterior approach, mobile-bearing, n=81). We noted specific demographic data and radiographic data were measured including: Hindfoot alignment view angle (HAV), Hindfoot alignment distance (HAVD), tibiotalar ratio, a angle and ß angle. These were measured pre-operatively, and 6 months, 12 months, and 24 months post-operatively. Within-group comparisons were performed using one-way repeated-measures ANOVA (1-w rANOVA), analyzing temporal course of clinical data (comparisons between different time points, e.g. T0vsT6vsT12vsT24) within the Hintegra and Zimmer groups. To compare the time course of clinical measures between the two groups, 2-w rANOVAs were performed for SA, SD, TT ratio, a and ß angle. Specifically, time*group interaction was tested.Results:At the ankle joint itself, as measured by the a and ß angles (p>.05), the position of the components remains relatively similar in both the fixed and mobile bearing TAR over the course of 24 months. The sagittal alignment, as measured by the TT ratio, demonstrated a posterior shifting of the talus in the mobile bearing group (p=.036). Though the fixed and mobile-bearing TARhad both significant hindfoot alignment improvement between the pre-op radiographs and twenty-four months, over time, the fixed-bearing ankle had a significant increase in both the HAV and HAVD (p<.001), suggesting a dynamism of the hindfoot in the fixed-bearing ankle.Conclusion:Correcting coronal and sagittal alignment is important for the long-term survivorship of a TAR. The fixed and mobile-bearing implants had maintained coronal and sagittal alignment in the short term, the temporal course of the fixed-bearing ankle showed an increased in the valgus positioning of the hindfoot. The mobile-bearing implant maintained its hindfoot alignment over the course of the study. More studies are needed to explore the clinical implications of this new data.

Temporal patterns of commonly used clinical outcome scales during a 5-year period after total knee arthroplasty

BackgroundIt is not established beyond doubt whether improvements in functional outcome after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) are maintained in the long term. We therefore investigated the temporal patterns of functional outcome [using range of motion (ROM), American Knee Society (AKS) score, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) score, and 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) score] over a 5-year period after uncomplicated TKA, and whether these patterns differed by implant type and patient age.Materials and methodsThis prospective study evaluated 138 patients who underwent unilateral TKA with either a mobile-bearing (MB) or fixed-bearing (FB) posterior-stabilized prosthesis. An independent investigator evaluated the functional outcome at five time points: preoperatively and at 6-month, 1-year, 2-year, and 5-year follow-up. Differences in functional outcomes between adjacent time points were evaluated by mixed-effect model repeat measurement (MMRM).ResultsThe different functional outcome scores showed improvement till 6 months–2 years, followed by a variable decline. In patients aged ≥ 68 years with an MB implant, most of the functional outcome scores declined between 2 and 5 years after variable initial improvement till 6 months–2 years, whereas the parameters plateaued after 2 years in those aged < 68 years and in older patients with an FB implant.ConclusionsA decline in function and pain relief occurs 2 years after TKA. This decline is more evident in older patients with an MB prosthesis. Based on these findings, we believe that use of MB implants in older patients (≥ 68 years) requires further investigation.Level of evidenceLevel 3.

Medial Unicompartmental Arthroplasty of the Knee.

Indications for medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) have expanded over the past two decades. Proposed advantages include faster recovery, improved kinematics, and better functional outcomes compared with total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in age-matched control subjects. A focused preoperative examination and imaging is essential to identify appropriate surgical candidates. No difference has been demonstrated between fixed- and mobile-bearing implants for implant survivorship or patient-reported outcomes. The most common reasons for conversion to a TKA are aseptic loosening and progression of osteoarthritis. Ten-year survival for UKA in cohort studies has shown to be >90% with outcomes after conversion to TKA being similar to outcomes for revision TKA. Registries have consistently shown lower implant survival for UKA compared with that for TKA, which is likely secondary to use of several different implants by surgeons of varying levels of experience. UKA has the potential to be a cost-effective alternative to TKA in certain patient populations when performed at high-volume centers with advanced surgical techniques.

Insall-Salvati ratio stabilizes one year after mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty and does not correlate with mid-to-long-term clinical outcomes.

It has not been established whether changes in the length of the patellar tendon (LPT) after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) affect clinical outcomes. Therefore, this prospective cohort study aimed to evaluate changes in the LPT over time postoperatively and clarify their impact on clinical outcomes after bilateral TKA, performed with differently designed mobile-bearing (meniscal-bearing and rotating-platform) implants on contralateral knees. 51 patients who required staged bilateral mobile-bearing TKA were recruited. LPT was evaluated by measuring the Insall-Salvati ratio (ISR) preoperatively and at 1 week, 6 months, and 1, 2, and ≥ 5years postoperatively. Hospital for Special Surgery score and range of motion were assessed at the final follow-up. Based on the ISR, there were no differences in the patterns of change between the two types of implant (n.s.). At the 6-month follow-up, the ISRs of both implants had significantly decreased (p = 0.002). Throughout the follow-up, the ISR was significantly lower (p < 0.001) for the meniscal-bearing knees than for the rotating-platform knees. After the 1-year follow-up, there were no further substantial changes in the ISR in either group. There was also no significant correlation between the ISR and clinical outcomes. LPT decreased after both mobile-bearing TKAs for up to 1year postoperatively, although the decrease was more significant for the meniscal-bearing knees than the rotating-platform knees. After 1year postoperatively, however, these conditions had stabilized, with no further changes. Thus, LPT plays a minimal role in mid-to-long-term clinical outcomes after TKA. Therapeutic prospective study, Level II.

Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty

An age younger than 60 years, a body weight of 180 lb (82 kg) or more, performing heavy work, having chondrocalcinosis and having exposed bone in the patellofemoral (PF) joint are not contraindications for unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA).Severe wear of the lateral facet of the PF joint with bone loss and grooving is a contraindication for UKA.Medial UKA should only be performed in cases of severe osteoarthritis (OA) as shown in pre-operative X-rays, with medial bone-on-bone contact and a medial/lateral ratio of < 20%.The post-operative results of UKA are generally good. Medium-term and long-term studies have reported acceptable results at 10 years, with implant survival greater than 95% for UKAs performed for medial OA or osteonecrosis and for lateral UKA, especially when fixed-bearing implants are used.When all implant-related re-operations are considered, the 10-year survival rate is 94%, and the 15-year survival rate is 91%.Aseptic loosening is the principal failure mechanism in the first few years in mobile-bearing implants, whereas OA progression causes most failures in later years in fixed-bearing implants.The overall complication rate and the comprehensive re-operation rate are comparable in both mobile bearings and fixed bearings.The survival likelihood of the all-polyethylene UKA implant is similar to that of metal-backed modular designs for UKA.Notable cost savings of approximately 50% can be achieved with an outpatient UKA surgery protocol. Outpatient surgery for UKA is efficacious and safe, with satisfactory clinical results thus far.Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2018;3:363-373. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.3.170048

The Mobile-bearing TKA: Is There Still a Place?

During the 1980s, fixed-bearing total knee arthroplasty (TKA) became a reliable, reproducible procedure with about 95% implant survival after 10 years. However, implant loosening and polyethylene wear became recognized as long-term causes of late failure. If loosening is related to abnormal strains at the bone-implant interface, polyethylene wear is mainly caused by the lack of congruency during implant motion, and thus surgeons tried to improve TKA’s kinematics by introducing a second degree of freedom in their implants. Mobile-bearing knee replacements are based on a mobile polyethylene insert that articulates with a metallic femoral component and a metallic tibial tray. Those TKA designs have sought to increase congruency without increasing the stresses on the implant fixation. In vitro kinematic studies have shown reduced polyethylene wear in mobile bearings because of increased implant conformity and reduced polyethylene contact. In vivo kinematic analysis tends to confirm that mobile-bearing implants allow more natural knee movement. Despite several prospective, randomized studies having been performed, there is no clinical evidence supporting mobile bearing superiority over fixed-bearing designs. Studies focusing on gait parameters, clinical scores, or implant survival failed to confirm in vitro substantial advantage of mobile-bearing implants. More, recent improvement in polyethylene materials might solve wear issues: the last generation of cross-linked polyethylene, associated with a more morphometric design will probably provide superior implant survivorship and more physiological knee biomechanics.

Lateral unicompartmental knee replacement: a systematic review of reasons for failure.

Currently, individual studies lack the power to successively illustrate different failure modes; therefore, we undertook a systematic review to examine lateral unicompartmental knee replacement (lat UKR) failure modes. Furthermore, we compared early with midterm and late failures and fixed-bearing with mobile-bearing implants. A search using the databases of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and annual registries was performed to search for failed lat UKRs. Studies were included when they reported more than four failures,described failure modesandwere minimum level IV studies. Data was analysed based on overall failure modes, fixed- vs. mobile bearing andearly (<5years) vs. midterm (5-10years) vs. late failures (>10years). Fourteen cohort studies and two registry-based studies were included. A total of 336 overall failures, 87 time-dependent failures, and 175 implant-specific failures were identified. The main overall causes of failure were osteoarthritis (OA) progression (30%) and aseptic loosening (22%). These were followed by less common causes such as instability (7%), unexplained pain (5%), infection (5%), polyethylene wear (5%), and bearing dislocation (5%). Bearing dislocation was the most common early failure (29%) and also the most common failure among mobile-bearing implants (27%). In midterm and late failures, OA progression had the highest rates (59% and 78% respectively) and was also the most common type of failure in fixed-bearing implants (44%). Progression of OA and aseptic loosening are the major overall failure modes in lat UKR. Bearing dislocation was the main failure mode in early years and in mobile-bearing implants, whereas OA progression caused most failures in late years and in fixed-bearing implants. Systematic Review of minimum level IV studies.