Though knee osteoarthritis (OA) is diagnosed and monitored radiographically, full thickness cartilage loss (FTCL) has rarely been correlated with radiographic classification. This study aims to analyse which classification system correlates best with FTCL and assessing their reliability. Prospective study of 300 consecutive patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA) for OA. Two blinded examiners independently graded preoperative radiographs using 5 systems: Kellgren-Lawrence (KL); International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC); Fairbank; Brandt; and Ahlback. Interobserver agreement was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient. Intraoperatively, anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) status and FTCL in 16 regions of interest were recorded. Radiographic classification and FTCL were correlated using the Spearman correlation coefficient. On average, each knee had 6.8±3.1 regions of FTCL, most common medially. The commonest patterns of FTCL were medial with patellofemoral (48%) and tricompartmental (30%). ACL status was associated with pattern of FTCL (p=0.02). All classification systems demonstrated moderate ICC, but this was highest for IKDC: whole knee 0.68 (95%CI 0.60–0.74); medial compartment 0.84 (0.80–0.87); and lateral compartment 0.79 (0.73–0.83). Correlation with FTCL was strongest for Ahlback (Spearman rho 0.27–0.39) and KL (0.30–0.33), though all systems demonstrated medium correlation. The Ahlback was the most discriminating in severe OA. Osteophyte presence in the medial compartment had high positive predictive value for FTCL, but not in the lateral compartment. The Ahlback and KL systems had the highest correlation with confirmed cartilage loss. However, the IKDC system displayed best interobserver reliability, with favourable correlation with FTCL in medial and lateral compartments, though less discriminating in severe disease.
The treatment of massive rotator cuff tears remains controversial. There is lack of studies comparing patient-reported outcomes (PROM) of arthroscopic massive rotator cuff repairs (RCR) against large, medium and small RCRs. Our study aims to report the PROM for arthroscopic massive RCR versus non-massive RCR. Patients undergoing an arthroscopic RCR under a single surgeon over a 5-year period were included. Demographic data were recorded. Pre-operative Quick-DASH and Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS) were prospectively collected pre-operatively and at final review (mean of 18 months post-operatively). The scores were compared to a matched cohort of patients who had large, medium or small RCRs. A post-hoc power analysis confirmed 98% power was achieved. 82 patients were included in the study. 42 (51%) patients underwent massive RCR. The mean age of patients undergoing massive RCR was 59.7 and 55% (n=23) were female. 21% of massive RCRs had biceps augmentation. Quick-DASH improved significantly from a mean of 46.1 pre-operatively to 15.6 at final follow-up for massive RCRs (p<0.001). OSS improved significantly from a mean of 26.9 pre-operatively to 41.4 at final follow up for massive RCRs (p<0.001). There was no significant difference in the final Quick-DASH and OSS scores for massive and non-massive RCRs (p=0.35 and p=0.45 respectively). No revision surgery was required within the minimum one year follow up timescale. Arthroscopic massive rotator cuff repairs have no functional difference to non-massive rotator cuff repairs in the short term follow up period and should be considered in appropriate patient groups.
