The effect of using thicker liners in primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) on functional outcomes and aseptic failure rates remains largely unknown. As such, we devised a multicenter study to assess both the clinical outcomes and survivorship of thick vs thin liners after primary TKA. A search of our institutional databases was performed for patients having undergone bilateral (simultaneous or staged) primary TKA with similar preoperative and surgical characteristics between both sides. Two cohorts were created: thick liners and thin liners. Outcomes collected were as follows: change in Knee Society Score (DKSS), change in range of motion, and aseptic revision. Ad hoc power analysis was performed for DKSS (α ¼ 0.05; power ¼ 80%). Differences between cohorts were assessed.Introduction
Methods
Patellar dislocation is a serious complication leading to patient morbidity following total knee arthroplasty. The cause can be multifactorial. Extensor mechanism imbalance may be present and result from technical errors such as malrotation of the implants. We performed a retrospective study assessing the outcomes of revision surgery for patellar dislocation in patients with component malrotation in both primary and revision total knee arthroplasty. Patient demographics, etiology of dislocation, presurgical deformity, intraoperation component position, complications, reoperation and knee society scores were collected.Background
Methods
The aim of this study was to assess the effects of transferring patients to a specialized arthroplasty centre between the first and second stages (interstage) of prosthetic joint infection (PJI) of the knee. A search of our institutional database was performed to identify patients having undergone two-stage revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) for PJI. Two cohorts were created: continuous care (CC) and transferred care (TC). Baseline characteristics and outcomes were collected and compared between cohorts.Aims
Patients and Methods
Total knee replacement (TKR) is one of the most
common operations in orthopaedic surgery worldwide. Despite its
scientific reputation as mainly successful, only 81% to 89% of patients
are satisfied with the final result. Our understanding of this discordance
between patient and surgeon satisfaction is limited. In our experience,
focus on five major factors can improve patient satisfaction rates:
correct patient selection, setting of appropriate expectations,
avoiding preventable complications, knowledge of the finer points
of the operation, and the use of both pre- and post-operative pathways.
Awareness of the existence, as well as the identification of predictors
of patient–surgeon discordance should potentially help with enhancing
patient outcomes. Cite this article:
