Search

Purpose: Decades of innovations in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) design have led to large number of possible prosthesis combinations in regards fixation, posterior stability, bearing mobility, bearing surface, and patella resurfacing, each of which can alter the revision risk. The accumulative effect when the lowest risk combination in each design category, or "Optimum Prosthesis Combination" (OPC) is utilized remains unknown. The purpose of this analysis was to first, identify the OPC and second, to compare the revision risk of a cohort who received the OPC to a cohort who received an Alternative Prosthesis Combination (APC).Methods: National registry revision risk data for primary TKA for osteoarthritis were obtained from September 1999 to December 2015 for two patient cohorts, those receiving an OPC and those receiving an APC. OPC was defined as TKA with the lowest revision risk option for five primary TKA design categories; fixation, posterior stability, bearing mobility, bearing surface, and patella resurfacing, while APC had one or more higher risk options.Results: Of the 482,373 included TKA, 42,008 (8.7%) were in the OPC cohort, who received a minimally stabilized, fixed bearing TKA with cross-linked polyethylene with patella resurfacing. Both cohorts had similar demographics. At 10 years, the OPC cohort had a Cumulative Percent Revision of 2.4% (95% CI 2.1, 2.8) compared to 5.5% (95% CI 5.4, 5.6) for the APC cohort. For all patients, revision risk of the APC cohort was higher at all times [151% greater at ≥ 3 years (p < 0.001)]. Loosening/lysis was the most common cause of revision in the ACP cohort (1.1%), while it was the second most common cause in the OPC cohort (0.3%). The increased risk was apparent in all age and gender subgroups, with the highest risk increase seen in males ≥ 65 years.Conclusions: Patients receiving the lowest risk prosthesis design combination or Optimum Prosthesis Combination TKA had a 60% lower revision risk, with similar demographics to the Alternative Prosthesis Combination TKA.Level Of Evidence: III. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Rupture of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) is a common and debilitating injury that impacts significantly on knee function and risks the development of degenerative arthritis. The outcome of ACL surgery is not monitored in Australia. The optimal treatment is unknown. Consequently, the identification of best practice in treating ACL is crucial to the development of improved outcomes. The Australian Knee Society (AKS) asked the Australian Orthopaedic Association (AOA) to consider establishing a national ACL registry. As a first step, a pilot study was undertaken by the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) to test the hypothesis that collecting the required information in the Australian setting was possible.Methods: Surgeons completed an operative form which provided comprehensive information on the surgery undertaken. Patients provided pre- and post-operative questionnaires including the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) and the Marx Activity Scale (MA Scale). The number of ACL procedures undertaken at each hospital during the recruitment period was compared against State Government Health Department separation data.Results: A total of 802 patients were recruited from October 2011 to January 2013. The overall capture rate for surgeon-derived data was 99%, and the capture rate for the pre-operative patient questionnaire was 97.9%. At 6 months, patient-reported outcomes were obtained from 55% of patients, and 58.5% of patients at 12 months. When checked against State Government Health Department separation data, 31.3% of procedures undertaken at each study hospital were captured in the study.Conclusion: It is possible to collect surgeon-derived and pre-operative patient-reported data, following ACL reconstruction in Australia. The need to gain patient consent was a limiting factor to participation. When patients did consent to participate in the study, we were able to capture nearly 100% of surgical procedures. Patient consent would not be an issue in for a national registry where inclusion is automatic unless the patient wishes to opt out. The collection of post-operative patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) is more problematic, due to an insufficient proportion of individuals providing patient-reported outcomes. Alternative outcome measures are required for an ACL registry in Australia to be successfully implemented.Level Of Evidence: Diagnostic, Level III. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]