Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly being used to assess functional outcome and patient satisfaction. They provide a framework for comparisons between surgical units, and individual surgeons for benchmarking and financial remuneration. Better performance may bring the reward of more customers as patients and commissioners seek out high performers for their elective procedures. Using National Joint Registry (NJR) data linked to PROMs we identified 22 691 primary total knee replacements (TKRs) undertaken for osteoarthritis in England and Wales between August 2008 and February 2011, and identified the surgical factors that influenced the improvements in the Oxford knee score (OKS) and EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) assessment using multiple regression analysis. After correction for patient factors the only surgical factors that influenced PROMs were implant brand and hospital type (both p < 0.001). However, the effects of surgical factors upon the PROMs were modest compared with patient factors. For both the OKS and the EQ-5D the most important factors influencing the improvement in PROMs were the corresponding pre-operative score and the patient’s general health status. Despite having only a small effect on PROMs, this study has shown that both implant brand and hospital type do influence reported subjective functional scores following TKR. In the current climate of financial austerity, proposed performance-based remuneration and wider patient choice, it would seem unwise to ignore these effects and the influence of a range of additional patient factors.

Following arthroplasty of the knee, the patient’s perception of improvement in symptoms is fundamental to the assessment of outcome. Better clinical outcome may offset the inferior survival observed for some types of implant. By examining linked National Joint Registry (NJR) and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) data, we aimed to compare PROMs collected at a minimum of six months post-operatively for total (TKR: n = 23 393) and unicondylar knee replacements (UKR: n = 505). Improvements in knee-specific (Oxford knee score, OKS) and generic (EuroQol, EQ-5D) scores were compared and adjusted for case-mix differences using multiple regression. Whereas the improvements in the OKS and EQ-5D were significantly greater for TKR than for UKR, once adjustments were made for case-mix differences and pre-operative score, the improvements in the two scores were not significantly different. The adjusted mean differences in the improvement of OKS and EQ-5D were 0.0 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.9 to 0.9; p = 0.96) and 0.009 (95% CI -0.034 to 0.015; p = 0.37), respectively.

We found no difference in the improvement of either knee-specific or general health outcomes between TKR and UKR in a large cohort of registry patients. With concerns about significantly higher revision rates for UKR observed in worldwide registries, we question the widespread use of an arthroplasty that does not confer a significant benefit in clinical outcome.

We compared thromboembolic events, major haemorrhage and death after knee replacement in patients receiving either aspirin or low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH). Data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales were linked to an administrative database of hospital admissions in the English National Health Service. A total of 156 798 patients between April 2003 and September 2008 were included and followed for 90 days. Multivariable risk modelling was used to estimate odds ratios adjusted for baseline risk factors (AOR). An AOR < 1 indicates that risk rates are lower with LMWH than with aspirin. In all, 36 159 patients (23.1%) were prescribed aspirin and 120 639 patients (76.9%) were prescribed LMWH. We found no statistically significant differences between the aspirin and LMWH groups in the rate of pulmonary embolism (0.49% vs 0.45%, AOR 0.88 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 1.05); p = 0.16), 90-day mortality (0.39% vs 0.45%, AOR 1.13 (95% CI 0.94 to 1.37); p = 0.19) or major haemorrhage (0.37% vs 0.39%, AOR 1.01 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.22); p = 0.94). There was a significantly greater likelihood of needing to return to theatre in the aspirin group (0.26% vs 0.19%, AOR 0.73 (95% CI 0.58 to 0.94); p = 0.01). Between patients receiving LMWH or aspirin there was only a small difference in the risk of pulmonary embolism, 90-day mortality and major haemorrhage.

These results should be considered when the existing guidelines for thromboprophylaxis after knee replacement are reviewed.

We undertook a prospective, randomised study of 135 total knee arthroplasties to determine the most accurate and reliable technique for alignment of the tibial prosthesis. Tibial resection was guided by either intramedullary or extramedullary alignment jigs.

Of the 135 knees, standardised postoperative radiographs suitable for assessment were available in 100. Correct tibial alignment was found in 85% of the intramedullary group compared with 65% of the extramedullary group (p = 0.019).

We conclude that intramedullary guides are superior to extramedullary instruments for alignment of the tibial prosthesis.