header advert
Results 1 - 2 of 2
Results per page:
The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 101-B, Issue 10 | Pages 1230 - 1237
1 Oct 2019
Kayani B Konan S Horriat S Ibrahim MS Haddad FS

Aims

The aim of this study was to assess the effect of posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) resection on flexion-extension gaps, mediolateral soft-tissue laxity, fixed flexion deformity (FFD), and limb alignment during posterior-stabilized (PS) total knee arthroplasty (TKA).

Patients and Methods

This prospective study included 110 patients with symptomatic osteoarthritis of the knee undergoing primary robot-assisted PS TKA. All operations were performed by a single surgeon using a standard medial parapatellar approach. Optical motion capture technology with fixed femoral and tibial registration pins was used to assess gaps before and after PCL resection in extension and 90° knee flexion. Measurements were made after excision of the anterior cruciate ligament and prior to bone resection. There were 54 men (49.1%) and 56 women (50.9%) with a mean age of 68 years (sd 6.2) at the time of surgery. The mean preoperative hip-knee-ankle deformity was 4.1° varus (sd 3.4).


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 97-B, Issue 2 | Pages 197 - 201
1 Feb 2015
Kallala RF Vanhegan IS Ibrahim MS Sarmah S Haddad FS

Revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a complex procedure which carries both a greater risk for patients and greater cost for the treating hospital than does a primary TKA. As well as the increased cost of peri-operative investigations, blood transfusions, surgical instrumentation, implants and operating time, there is a well-documented increased length of stay which accounts for most of the actual costs associated with surgery.

We compared revision surgery for infection with revision for other causes (pain, instability, aseptic loosening and fracture). Complete clinical, demographic and economic data were obtained for 168 consecutive revision TKAs performed at a tertiary referral centre between 2005 and 2012.

Revision surgery for infection was associated with a mean length of stay more than double that of aseptic cases (21.5 vs 9.5 days, p < 0.0001). The mean cost of a revision for infection was more than three times that of an aseptic revision (£30 011 (sd 4514) vs £9655 (sd 599.7), p < 0.0001).

Current NHS tariffs do not fully reimburse the increased costs of providing a revision knee surgery service. Moreover, especially as greater costs are incurred for infected cases. These losses may adversely affect the provision of revision surgery in the NHS.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:197–201.