The routine use of patient reported outcome measures
(PROMs) in evaluating the outcome after arthroplasty by healthcare
organisations reflects a growing recognition of the importance of
patients’ perspectives in improving treatment. Although widely embraced
in the NHS, there are concerns that PROMs are being used beyond
their means due to a poor understanding of their limitations. This paper reviews some of the current challenges in using PROMs
to evaluate total knee arthroplasty. It highlights alternative methods
that have been used to improve the assessment of outcome. Cite this article:
Accurate, reproducible outcome measures are essential
for the evaluation of any orthopaedic procedure, in both clinical
practice and research. Commonly used patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have
drawbacks such as ‘floor’ and ‘ceiling’ effects, limitations of
worldwide adaptability and an inability to distinguish pain from
function. They are also unable to measure the true outcome of an
intervention rather than a patient’s perception of that outcome. Performance-based functional outcome tools may address these
problems. It is important that both clinicians and researchers are
aware of these measures when dealing with high-demand patients,
using a new intervention or implant, or testing a new rehabilitation
protocol. This article provides an overview of some of the clinically-validated
performance-based functional outcome tools used in the assessment
of patients undergoing hip and knee surgery. Cite this article:
Substantial healthcare resources have been devoted
to computer navigation and patient-specific instrumentation systems
that improve the reproducibility with which neutral mechanical alignment
can be achieved following total knee replacement (TKR). This choice of
alignment is based on the long-held tenet that the alignment of
the limb post-operatively should be within 3° of a neutral mechanical
axis. Several recent studies have demonstrated no significant difference
in survivorship when comparing well aligned Review of the literature suggests that a neutral mechanical axis
remains the optimal guide to alignment. Cite this article:
In this paper we make the case for the use of
single-stage revision for infected knee arthroplasty.
Radiological assessment of total and unicompartmental
knee replacement remains an essential part of routine care and follow-up.
Appreciation of the various measurements that can be identified
radiologically is important. It is likely that routine plain radiographs
will continue to be used, although there has been a trend towards
using newer technologies such as CT, especially in a failing knee,
where it provides more detailed information, albeit with a higher
radiation exposure. The purpose of this paper is to outline the radiological parameters
used to evaluate knee replacements, describe how these are measured
or classified, and review the current literature to determine their
efficacy where possible.
This review summarises the opinions and conclusions
reached from a symposium on infected total knee replacement (TKR)
held at the British Association of Surgery of the Knee (BASK) annual
meeting in 2011. The National Joint Registry for England and Wales
reported 5082 revision TKRs in 2010, of which 1157 (23%) were caused
by infection. The diagnosis of infection beyond the acute post-operative
stage relies on the identification of the causative organism by
aspiration and analysis of material obtained at arthroscopy. Ideal
treatment then involves a two-stage surgical procedure with extensive
debridement and washout, followed by antibiotics. An articulating
or non-articulating drug-eluting cement spacer is used prior to
implantation of the revision prosthesis, guided by the serum level
of inflammatory markers. The use of a single-stage revision is gaining popularity
and we would advocate its use in certain patients where the causative
organism is known, no sinuses are present, the patient is not immunocompromised,
and there is no radiological evidence of component loosening or
osteitis. It is our opinion that single-stage revision produces high-quality
reproducible results and will soon achieve the same widespread acceptance
as it does in infected hip arthroplasty.
The PROSTALAC functional spacer is made of antibiotic-loaded acrylic cement but has a small metal-on-polythene articular surface. We have used it as an interim spacer in two-stage exchange arthroplasty for infected total knee replacement. PROSTALAC allows continuous rehabilitation between stages as it maintains good alignment and stability of the knee and a reasonable range of movement. It also helps to maintain the soft-tissue planes, which facilitates the second-stage procedure. We reviewed 45 consecutive patients, treated over a period of nine years. The mean follow-up was for 48 months (20 to 112). At final review, there was no evidence of infection in 41 patients (91%); only one had a recurrent infection with the same organism. There was improvement in the Hospital for Special Surgery knee score between stages and at final review. The range of movement was maintained between stages. Complications were primarily related to the extensor mechanism and stability of the knee between stages. Both of these problems decreased with refinement of the design of the implant. The rate of cure of the infection in our patients was similar to that using other methods. Movement of the knee does not appear to hinder control of infection.
We present a patient with an arteriovenous fistula of the peroneal artery acquired after a left dome tibial osteotomy with midshaft fibular osteotomy. He had subsequently had a total knee replacement on that side. The arteriovenous malformation was only diagnosed when he represented with symptoms and signs of venous hypertension with sterile recurrent haemarthroses in the left knee. Percutaneous obliteration of the fistula, by a combination of coil embolisation and balloon occlusion, cured the symptoms.
