Decision making for knee replacement: variation in treatment choice for late stage medial compartment osteoarthritis

Can ChatGPT make surgical decisions with confidence similar to experienced knee surgeons?

BACKGROUND

Unicompartmental knee replacements (UKRs) have become an increasingly attractive option for end-stage single-compartment knee osteoarthritis (OA). However, there remains controversy in patient selection. Natural language processing (NLP) is a form of artificial intelligence (AI). We aimed to determine whether general-purpose open-source natural language programs can make decisions regarding a patient's suitability for a total knee replacement (TKR) or a UKR and how confident AI NLP programs are in surgical decision making.

METHODS

We conducted a case-based cohort study using data from a separate study, where participants (73 surgeons and AI NLP programs) were presented with 32 fictitious clinical case scenarios that simulated patients with predominantly medial knee OA who would require surgery. Using the overall UKR/TKR judgments of the 73 experienced knee surgeons as the gold standard reference, we calculated the sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value of AI NLP programs to identify whether a patient should undergo UKR.

RESULTS

There was disagreement between the surgeons and ChatGPT in only five scenarios (15.6%). With the 73 surgeons' decision as the gold standard, the sensitivity of ChatGPT in determining whether a patient should undergo UKR was 0.91 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.71 to 0.98). The positive predictive value for ChatGPT was 0.87 (95% CI: 0.72 to 0.94). ChatGPT was more confident in its UKR decision making (surgeon mean confidence = 1.7, ChatGPT mean confidence = 2.4).

CONCLUSIONS

It has been demonstrated that ChatGPT can make surgical decisions, and exceeded the confidence of experienced knee surgeons with substantial inter-rater agreement when deciding whether a patient was most appropriate for a UKR.

Surgical interventions for symptomatic knee osteoarthritis: a network meta-analysis of randomized control trials

BACKGROUND

Multiple surgical interventions exist for the treatment of symptomatic knee osteoarthritis, but the surgeon and patient may often have difficulty deciding which interventions are the best option.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review to identify randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that compared complications, revisions, reoperations, and functional outcomes among TKA (total knee arthroplasty), UKA (unicompartmental knee arthroplasty), HTO (high tibial osteotomy), BCA (bicompartmental knee arthroplasty), BIU (bi-unicompartmental knee arthroplasty), and KJD (knee joint distraction). The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were reviewed for all studies comparing two or more surgical interventions. Direct-comparison meta-analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA) were performed to combine direct and indirect evidence. The risk of bias was assessed using the revised Cochrane risk of bias tool for RCTs.

RESULTS

This NMA and systematic review included 21 studies (17 RCTs), with a total of 1749 patients. The overall risk-of-bias assessment of the RCTs revealed that 7 studies had low risk, 5 had some concerns, and 9 had high risk. SUCRA (the surface under the cumulative ranking curve) rankings revealed that KJD had the greatest risk of appearing postoperative complications, revisions, and reoperations, and UKA or TKA had the lowest risk. The majority of comparisons among various treatments showed no difference for functional outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Each surgical intervention is noninferior to other treatments in functional outcomes, but UKA and TKA are better options to treat OA according to SUCRA rankings by comparing complications, revisions, and reoperations. KJD is an imperfect option for treating OA. Other treatments should be carefully considered for each patient in accordance with their actual conditions. However, this conclusion is limited by the selection of reviewed publications and individual variation of surgical indications for patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study was registered with Research Registry (reviewregistry1395).

Unicompartmental compared with total knee replacement for patients with multimorbidities: a cohort study using propensity score stratification and inverse probability weighting

BACKGROUND

Although routine NHS data potentially include all patients, confounding limits their use for causal inference. Methods to minimise confounding in observational studies of implantable devices are required to enable the evaluation of patients with severe systemic morbidity who are excluded from many randomised controlled trials.

OBJECTIVES

Stage 1 - replicate the Total or Partial Knee Arthroplasty Trial (TOPKAT), a surgical randomised controlled trial comparing unicompartmental knee replacement with total knee replacement using propensity score and instrumental variable methods. Stage 2 - compare the risk benefits and cost-effectiveness of unicompartmental knee replacement with total knee replacement surgery in patients with severe systemic morbidity who would have been ineligible for TOPKAT using the validated methods from stage 1.

DESIGN

This was a cohort study.

SETTING

Data were obtained from the National Joint Registry database and linked to hospital inpatient (Hospital Episode Statistics) and patient-reported outcome data.

PARTICIPANTS

Stage 1 - people undergoing unicompartmental knee replacement surgery or total knee replacement surgery who met the TOPKAT eligibility criteria. Stage 2 - participants with an American Society of Anesthesiologists grade of ≥ 3.

INTERVENTION

The patients were exposed to either unicompartmental knee replacement surgery or total knee replacement surgery.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome measure was the postoperative Oxford Knee Score. The secondary outcome measures were 90-day postoperative complications (venous thromboembolism, myocardial infarction and prosthetic joint infection) and 5-year revision risk and mortality. The main outcome measures for the health economic analysis were health-related quality of life (EuroQol-5 Dimensions) and NHS hospital costs.

RESULTS

In stage 1, propensity score stratification and inverse probability weighting replicated the results of TOPKAT. Propensity score adjustment, propensity score matching and instrumental variables did not. Stage 2 included 2256 unicompartmental knee replacement patients and 57,682 total knee replacement patients who had severe comorbidities, of whom 145 and 23,344 had linked Oxford Knee Scores, respectively. A statistically significant but clinically irrelevant difference favouring unicompartmental knee replacement was observed, with a mean postoperative Oxford Knee Score difference of < 2 points using propensity score stratification; no significant difference was observed using inverse probability weighting. Unicompartmental knee replacement more than halved the risk of venous thromboembolism [relative risk 0.33 (95% confidence interval 0.15 to 0.74) using propensity score stratification; relative risk 0.39 (95% confidence interval 0.16 to 0.96) using inverse probability weighting]. Unicompartmental knee replacement was not associated with myocardial infarction or prosthetic joint infection using either method. In the long term, unicompartmental knee replacement had double the revision risk of total knee replacement [hazard ratio 2.70 (95% confidence interval 2.15 to 3.38) using propensity score stratification; hazard ratio 2.60 (95% confidence interval 1.94 to 3.47) using inverse probability weighting], but half of the mortality [hazard ratio 0.52 (95% confidence interval 0.36 to 0.74) using propensity score stratification; insignificant effect using inverse probability weighting]. Unicompartmental knee replacement had lower costs and higher quality-adjusted life-year gains than total knee replacement for stage 2 participants.

LIMITATIONS

Although some propensity score methods successfully replicated TOPKAT, unresolved confounding may have affected stage 2. Missing Oxford Knee Scores may have led to information bias.

CONCLUSIONS

Propensity score stratification and inverse probability weighting successfully replicated TOPKAT, implying that some (but not all) propensity score methods can be used to evaluate surgical innovations and implantable medical devices using routine NHS data. Unicompartmental knee replacement was safer and more cost-effective than total knee replacement for patients with severe comorbidity and should be considered the first option for suitable patients.

FUTURE WORK

Further research is required to understand the performance of propensity score methods for evaluating surgical innovations and implantable devices.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial is registered as EUPAS17435.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 66. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The Renaissance of Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty appears rational - A radiograph-based comparative Study on adverse Events and patient-reported Outcomes in 353 TKAs and 98 UKAs

PURPOSE

Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) are both considered suitable for antero-medial osteoarthritis and spontaneous osteonecrosis of the knee. National registry data are consistent in showing higher revision rates for UKA. Adequately adjusted, these findings may be challenged by differences in adverse events and patient-reported outcomes, as both can have serious long-term implications. Based on preoperative radiographs, the aim was to retrospectively compare the two principle surgeries in these respects.

METHODS

All TKA procedures in 2016 in one Swedish county council were, according to certain radiograph-based consensus criteria, visually evaluated for medial UKA suitability. Then, using different regression models, they were compared with the corresponding medial UKAs performed in 2015-2017 regarding complications and patient-reported outcomes one year after surgery.

RESULTS

The UKA group showed an 82% reduced risk (OR 0.2; 95% CI 0.0-0.6) of any complications, whereas the 55% reduced risk of severe complication did not reach statistical significance (OR 0.5; 95% CI 0.1-2.1). These findings corresponded in high-volume surgeries to an absolute complication rate of 0% in the UKA group and 10% in the TKA group (p = 0.005) and to a severe complication rate of 0% and 5% respectively (p = 0.05). Though no differences were seen in any general patient-reported outcomes, the pain and function based OMERACT-OARSI responder criteria indicated in both around a 60% better chance of any response (OR 1.6 CI % 0.6-4.5) and a high response (OR 1.6; 95% CI 0.7-3.4) in the UKA group.

CONCLUSION

No differences were shown in patient-reported outcomes but a clear difference in risk of complications, favoring the UKA procedure.

Total versus partial knee replacement in patients with medial compartment knee osteoarthritis: the TOPKAT RCT

BACKGROUND

Late-stage medial compartment knee osteoarthritis can be treated using total knee replacement or partial (unicompartmental) knee replacement. There is high variation in treatment choice and insufficient evidence to guide selection.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of partial knee replacement compared with total knee replacement in patients with medial compartment knee osteoarthritis. The findings are intended to guide surgical decision-making for patients, surgeons and health-care providers.

DESIGN

This was a randomised, multicentre, pragmatic comparative effectiveness trial that included an expertise component. The target sample size was 500 patients. A web-based randomisation system was used to allocate treatments.

SETTING

Twenty-seven NHS hospitals (68 surgeons).

PARTICIPANTS

Patients with medial compartment knee osteoarthritis.

INTERVENTIONS

The trial compared the overall management strategy of partial knee replacement treatment with total knee replacement treatment. No specified brand or subtype of implant was investigated.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The Oxford Knee Score at 5 years was the primary end point. Secondary outcomes included activity scores, global health measures, transition items, patient satisfaction (Lund Score) and complications (including reoperation, revision and composite 'failure' - defined by minimal Oxford Knee Score improvement and/or reoperation). Cost-effectiveness was also assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 528 patients were randomised (partial knee replacement, n = 264; total knee replacement, n = 264). The follow-up primary outcome response rate at 5 years was 88% and both operations had good outcomes. There was no significant difference between groups in mean Oxford Knee Score at 5 years (difference 1.04, 95% confidence interval -0.42 to 2.50). An area under the curve analysis of the Oxford Knee Score at 5 years showed benefit in favour of partial knee replacement over total knee replacement, but the difference was within the minimal clinically important difference [mean 36.6 (standard deviation 8.3) (n = 233), mean 35.1 (standard deviation 9.1) (n = 231), respectively]. Secondary outcome measures showed consistent patterns of benefit in the direction of partial knee replacement compared with total knee replacement although most differences were small and non-significant. Patient-reported improvement (transition) and reflection (would you have the operation again?) showed statistically significant superiority for partial knee replacement only, but both of these variables could be influenced by the lack of blinding. The frequency of reoperation (including revision) by treatment received was similar for both groups: 22 out of 245 for partial knee replacement and 28 out of 269 for total knee replacement patients. Revision rates at 5 years were 10 out of 245 for partial knee replacement and 8 out of 269 for total knee replacement. There were 28 'failures' of partial knee replacement and 38 'failures' of total knee replacement (as defined by composite outcome). Beyond 1 year, partial knee replacement was cost-effective compared with total knee replacement, being associated with greater health benefits (measured using quality-adjusted life-years) and lower health-care costs, reflecting lower costs of the index surgery and subsequent health-care use.

LIMITATIONS

It was not possible to blind patients in this study and there was some non-compliance with the allocated treatment interventions. Surgeons providing partial knee replacement were relatively experienced with the procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

Both total knee replacement and partial knee replacement are effective, offer similar clinical outcomes and have similar reoperation and complication rates. Some patient-reported measures of treatment approval were significantly higher for partial knee replacement than for total knee replacement. Partial knee replacement was more cost-effective (more effective and cost saving) than total knee replacement at 5 years.

FUTURE WORK

Further (10-year) follow-up is in progress to assess the longer-term stability of these findings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN03013488 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01352247.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 20. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Poor Clearance of Free Hemoglobin Due to Lower Active Haptoglobin Availability is Associated with Osteoarthritis Inflammation

Introduction

Circulating plasma proteins play an important role in various diseases, and analysis of the plasma proteome has led to the discovery of various disease biomarkers. Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common chronic joint disease, mostly affecting people of older age. OA typically starts as a focal disease (in a single compartment, typically treated with unicompartmental knee replacement), and then progresses to the other compartments (if not treated in time, typically treated with total knee replacement). For this, identification of differential proteins was carried out in plasma samples of OA cases and compared with healthy controls. The aim of this study was to identify circulatory differentially expressed proteins (DEPs) in knee-OA patients undergoing total knee replacement or unicompartmental knee replacement compared to healthy controls and assess their role, in order to have better understanding of the etiology behind OA pathophysiology.

Methods

DEPs were identified with two-dimensional gel electrophoresis (2DE) and isobaric tags for relative and absolute quantification (iTRAQ), followed by liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry. Validation of DEPs was carried out using Western blot and ELISA. Posttranslational modifications were checked after running native gel using purified protein from patients, followed by detection of autoantibodies.

Results

In total, 52 DEPs were identified, among which 45 were distinct DEPs. Haptoglobin (Hp) was identified as one of the most significantly upregulated proteins in OA (P=0.005) identified by both 2DE and iTRAQ. Decreased levels of Hp tetramers and increased levels of autoantibodies against Hpβ were observed in OA plasma.

Conclusion

Our data suggest that poor clearance of free hemoglobin and low levels of Hp tetramers may be associated with OA pathogenesis and inflammation.

Quality of life outcomes in patients undergoing knee replacement surgery: longitudinal findings from the QPro-Gin study

Background

Many patients report postoperative pain, limited improvement in physical function and poor quality of life (QOL) after knee replacement surgery. Our study uses baseline predictors of change to investigate the QOL of patients with knee osteoarthritis 3-months after knee replacement surgery.

Methods

A prospective observational study was designed to evaluate patients (n = 132) scheduled for uni-compartmental or total knee replacement surgery who were assessed at baseline (preoperatively) and 3-months after. Physical and mental endpoints based on the component scores of the SF-12 and on the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis (WOMAC) index were used to investigate patients’ QOL. Generalised estimating equation methodology was used to assess patients’ baseline characteristics (age, sex, education, body mass index (BMI), comorbidity, depressive symptoms, cognitive impairment, smoking/alcohol and type of surgery), the study endpoints and their changes over a 3-month post-surgery period. Stratified analyses by rehabilitation status after discharge were performed.

Results

Longitudinal data analysis showed that the baseline factors associated with improvement in general QOL at the 3-month post-surgery assessment were higher BMI, a high comorbidity, total (as opposed to unicompartmental) knee replacement and low education level. Data analysis of the patients who underwent rehabilitation after discharge revealed that the current smokers’ physical QOL worsened over time. The general QOL was unchanged over time in the presence of depressive symptomatology.

Conclusions

These findings underline the importance of using comprehensive assessment methods to identify factors affecting functionality and QOL, and developing interventions to improve the health/wellbeing of patients after knee replacement.

Does Medial Patellofemoral Osteoarthritis Influence Outcome Scores and Risk of Revision After Fixed-bearing Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty?

BACKGROUND

Patellofemoral osteoarthritis (OA) and anterior knee pain sometimes are considered contraindications for unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA). However, several studies have demonstrated excellent patient-reported outcome scores in patients with patellofemoral OA treated with medial mobile-bearing UKA. Because these studies assessed the outcome of mobile-bearing UKA only, we were interested to see whether that finding also applies to fixed-bearing medial UKA.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) Does patellofemoral OA influence patient-reported outcome scores after medial fixed-bearing UKA? (2) Does untreated medial patellofemoral OA increase the revision rate after medial fixed-bearing UKA?

METHODS

Between 2008 and 2015, one surgeon performed 308 medial fixed-bearing UKAs of a single design. Of those, 80 (26%) had patellofemoral OA of at least moderate severity (ICRS III or IV), and 228 (74%) did not. During that period, the surgeon did not use patellofemoral OA as a contraindication to UKA. In all, 13 patients (10%) in the patellofemoral OA group were lost before 2-year minimum followup, and 20 (11%) in the control group (without patellofemoral OA) were lost; all other patients were available, seen in the last 5 years, and included in this retrospective study. Mean (± SD) followup in the patellofemoral OA group was 39 ± 25 months, and it was 41 ± 23 in the control group. There were 100 women and 120 men. Patients had a mean age ± SD of 65 ± 10 years and mean ± SD BMI of 29 ± 4.5 kg/m.The intraoperative status of the patellofemoral joint was assessed using the International Cartilage Repair Society (ICRS) classification. The primary study endpoint was the Forgotten Joint Score (FJS-12); we also compared scores on the Lonner PatelloFemoral Score (LPFS), Oxford Knee Score (OKS) and Short-Form 12 (SF-12). With the numbers available, we had 80% power to detect a difference of 12.3 points on the Forgotten Joint Score. A secondary endpoint was femoral or tibial component revision for any reason verified over the phone for each included patient.

RESULTS

With the numbers available, there was no difference in FJS-12 score between the UKA with patellofemoral OA group and the group without patellofemoral OA 71 ± 29 versus 77 ± 26, mean difference - 6; 95% CI, -16 to 4.5; p = 0.270). Likewise, with the numbers available, we saw no differences in LPFS, OKS and SF-12. There was no difference in survivorship from all-cause revision at 4 years between the patellofemoral OA group and the group without patellofemoral OA (98%; 95% CI, 85.8-99.7 versus 99.5%; 95% CI, 96.0-99.2%; p = 0.352).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with medial osteoarthritis in this single-center study generally benefitted from medial fixed-bearing UKA with good-to-excellent outcomes scores at short term, whether or not medial patellofemoral wear is present.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic study.

The clinical and cost-effectiveness of total versus partial knee replacement in patients with medial compartment osteoarthritis (TOPKAT): 5-year outcomes of a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Late-stage isolated medial knee osteoarthritis can be treated with total knee replacement (TKR) or partial knee replacement (PKR). There is high variation in treatment choice and little robust evidence to guide selection. The Total or Partial Knee Arthroplasty Trial (TOPKAT) therefore aims to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of TKR versus PKR in patients with medial compartment osteoarthritis of the knee, and this represents an analysis of the main endpoints at 5 years.

METHODS

Our multicentre, pragmatic randomised controlled trial was done at 27 UK sites. We used a combined expertise-based and equipoise-based approach, in which patients with isolated osteoarthritis of the medial compartment of the knee and who satisfied general requirements for a medial PKR were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive PKR or TKR by surgeons who were either expert in and willing to perform both surgeries or by a surgeon with particular expertise in the allocated procedure. The primary endpoint was the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) 5 years after randomisation in all patients assigned to groups. Health-care costs (in UK 2017 prices) and cost-effectiveness were also assessed. This trial is registered with ISRCTN (ISRCTN03013488) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01352247).

FINDINGS

Between Jan 18, 2010, and Sept 30, 2013, we assessed 962 patients for their eligibility, of whom 431 (45%) patients were excluded (121 [13%] patients did not meet the inclusion criteria and 310 [32%] patients declined to participate) and 528 (55%) patients were randomly assigned to groups. 94% of participants responded to the follow-up survey 5 years after their operation. At the 5-year follow-up, we found no difference in OKS between groups (mean difference 1·04, 95% CI -0·42 to 2·50; p=0·159). In our within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis, we found that PKR was more effective (0·240 additional quality-adjusted life-years, 95% CI 0·046 to 0·434) and less expensive (-£910, 95% CI -1503 to -317) than TKR during the 5 years of follow-up. This finding was a result of slightly better outcomes, lower costs of surgery, and lower follow-up health-care costs with PKR than TKR.

INTERPRETATION

Both TKR and PKR are effective, offer similar clinical outcomes, and result in a similar incidence of re-operations and complications. Based on our clinical findings, and results regarding the lower costs and better cost-effectiveness with PKR during the 5-year study period, we suggest that PKR should be considered the first choice for patients with late-stage isolated medial compartment osteoarthritis.

FUNDING

National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

The Effect of Surgeon Preference for Selective Patellar Resurfacing on Revision Risk in Total Knee Replacement: An Instrumental Variable Analysis of 136,116 Procedures from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry

BACKGROUND

The optimum strategy regarding resurfacing the patella in total knee replacement (TKR) remains debated, with wide national and international variability. To minimize the confounders of a direct comparison of cases with or without resurfacing, we performed an instrumental variable analysis examining revision risk on the basis of surgeon preference for patellar resurfacing in TKR, specifically examining the subsequent patellar revision risk and all-cause revision risk among cases of surgeons preferring to perform resurfacing on a selective basis compared with those whose preference is to routinely resurface or who infrequently perform resurfacing.

METHODS

Data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry from 1999 to 2016 were obtained to assess the cumulative percent revision, hazard ratio, and revision diagnoses for 3 cohorts, grouped according the surgeons' patellar-resurfacing preferences: infrequently (<10% of the time), selectively (10% to <90% of the time), or routinely (≥90% of the time). To avoid confounding from implant design or surgeon performance, only minimally stabilized TKRs using hybrid or cemented fixation and performed by surgeons performing ≥50 TKR procedures per year were included.

RESULTS

A total of 136,116 procedures were included, with patients in all 3 cohorts having similar demographics. The selectively resurfaced cohort had a higher patellar revision risk compared with the routinely resurfaced cohort, with this risk being greatest in the first 4.5 years following the primary procedure, including 306% higher in the first 1.5 years, and remaining 50% higher after 4.5 years. In a subgroup analysis, increased revision risk was observed among males, females, those <65 years of age, and those ≥65 years of age. The infrequently resurfaced cohort had the highest risk of subsequent patellar revision, up to 482% higher, as seen in the first 1.5 years after the primary procedure, compared with the routinely resurfaced cohort. Additionally, the risk of all-cause revision was 20% higher for the selectively resurfaced cohort compared with routinely resurfaced.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgeons who preferred selective resurfacing of the patella had a higher risk of patellar revision than those who had preference for routine resurfacing of the patella. Overall, a greater preference for resurfacing resulted in a lower risk of patellar revision.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Patient relevant outcomes of unicompartmental versus total knee replacement: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To present a clear and comprehensive summary of the published data on unicompartmental knee replacement (UKA) or total knee replacement (TKA), comparing domains of outcome that have been shown to be important to patients and clinicians to allow informed decision making.

DESIGN

Systematic review using data from randomised controlled trials, nationwide databases or joint registries, and large cohort studies.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase, Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials (CENTRAL), and Clinical Trials.gov, searched between 1 January 1997 and 31 December 2018.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

Studies published in the past 20 years, comparing outcomes of primary UKA with TKA in adult patients. Studies were excluded if they involved fewer than 50 participants, or if translation into English was not available.

RESULTS

60 eligible studies were separated into three methodological groups: seven publications from six randomised controlled trials, 17 national joint registries and national database studies, and 36 cohort studies. Results for each domain of outcome varied depending on the level of data, and findings were not always significant. Analysis of the three groups of studies showed significantly shorter hospital stays after UKA than after TKA (-1.20 days (95% confidence interval -1.67 to -0.73), -1.43 (-1.53 to -1.33), and -1.73 (-2.30 to -1.16), respectively). There was no significant difference in pain, based on patient reported outcome measures (PROMs), but significantly better functional PROM scores for UKA than for TKA in both non-trial groups (mean difference -0.58 (-0.88 to -0.27) and -0.32 (-0.48 to -0.15), respectively). Regarding major complications, trials and cohort studies had non-significant results, but mortality after TKA was significantly higher in registry and large database studies (risk ratio 0.27 (0.16 to 0.45)), as were venous thromboembolic events (0.39 (0.27 to 0.57)) and major cardiac events (0.22 (0.06 to 0.86)). Early reoperation for any reason was higher after TKA than after UKA, but revision rates at five years remained higher for UKA in all three study groups (risk ratio 5.95 (1.29 to 27.59), 2.50 (1.77 to 3.54), and 3.13 (1.89 to 5.17), respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

TKA and UKA are both viable options for the treatment of isolated unicompartmental osteoarthritis. By directly comparing the two treatments, this study demonstrates better results for UKA in several outcome domains. However, the risk of revision surgery was lower for TKA. This information should be available to patients as part of the shared decision making process in choosing treatment options.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO number CRD42018089972.

Choosing Between Unicompartmental and Total Knee Replacement: What Can Economic Evaluations Tell Us? A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Patients with anteromedial arthritis who require a knee replacement could receive either a unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) or a total knee replacement (TKR). This review has been undertaken to identify economic evaluations comparing UKR and TKR, evaluate the approaches that were taken in the studies, assess the quality of reporting of these evaluations, and consider what they can tell us about the relative value for money of the procedures.

METHODS

A search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database was undertaken in January 2016 to identify relevant studies. Study characteristics were described, the quality of reporting and methods assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist, and study findings summarised.

RESULTS

Twelve studies satisfied the inclusion criteria. Five were within-study analyses, while another was based on a literature review. The remaining six studies were model-based analyses. All studies were informed by observational data. While methodological approaches varied, studies generally had either limited follow-up, did not fully account for baseline differences in patient characteristics or relied on previous research that did not. The quality of reporting was generally adequate across studies, except for considerations of the settings to which evaluations applied and the generalisability of the results to other decision-making contexts. In the short-term, UKR was generally associated with better health outcomes and lower costs than TKR. Initial cost savings associated with UKR seem to persist over patients' lifetimes even after accounting for higher rates of revision. For older patients, initial health improvements also appear to be maintained, making UKR the dominant treatment choice. However, for younger patients findings for health outcomes and overall cost effectiveness are mixed, with the difference in health outcomes depending on the lifetime risk of revision and patient outcomes following revision.

CONCLUSIONS

UKR appears to be less costly than TKR. For older patients, UKR is also expected to lead to better health outcomes, making it the dominant choice; however, for younger patients health outcomes are more uncertain. Future research should better account for baseline differences in patient characteristics and consider how the relative value of UKR and TKR varies depending on patient and surgical factors.

The Effect on Long-Term Survivorship of Surgeon Preference for Posterior-Stabilized or Minimally Stabilized Total Knee Replacement: An Analysis of 63,416 Prostheses from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry

BACKGROUND

Controversy still exists as to the optimum management of the posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) in total knee arthroplasty. Surgeons can choose to kinematically substitute the PCL with a posterior-stabilized total knee replacement or alternatively to utilize a cruciate-retaining, also known as minimally stabilized, total knee replacement. Proponents of posterior-stabilized total knee replacement propose that the reported lower survivorship in registries when directly compared with minimally stabilized total knee replacement is due to confounders such as selection bias because of the preferential usage of posterior-stabilized total knee replacement in more complex or severe cases. In this study, we aimed to eliminate these possible confounders by performing an instrumental variable analysis based on surgeon preference to choose either posterior-stabilized or minimally stabilized total knee replacement, rather than the actual prosthesis received.

METHODS

Cumulative percent revision, hazard ratio (HR), and revision diagnosis data were obtained from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry from September 1, 1999, to December 31, 2014, for 2 cohorts of patients, those treated by high-volume surgeons who preferred minimally stabilized replacements and those treated by high-volume surgeons who preferred posterior-stabilized replacements. All patients had a diagnosis of osteoarthritis and underwent fixed-bearing total knee replacement with patellar resurfacing.

RESULTS

At 13 years, the cumulative percent revision was 5.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.0% to 6.2%) for the surgeons who preferred the minimally stabilized replacements compared with 6.0% (95% CI, 4.2% to 8.5%) for the surgeons who preferred the posterior-stabilized replacements. The revision risk for the surgeons who preferred posterior-stabilized replacements was significantly higher for all causes (HR = 1.45 [95% CI, 1.30 to 1.63]; p < 0.001), for loosening or lysis (HR = 1.93 [95% CI, 1.58 to 2.37]; p < 0.001), and for infection (HR = 1.51 [95% CI, 1.25 to 1.82]; p < 0.001). This finding was irrespective of patient age and was evident with cemented fixation and with both cross-linked polyethylene and non-cross-linked polyethylene. However, the higher revision risk was only evident in male patients.

CONCLUSIONS

There was a 45% higher risk of revision for the patients of surgeons who preferred a posterior-stabilized total knee replacement compared with the patients of surgeons who preferred a minimally stabilized total knee replacement.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Lower blood loss after unicompartmental than total knee arthroplasty

PURPOSE

It is intuitive that blood loss is lower after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA), but the difference in potential blood loss between UKA and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has not yet been studied extensively. The hypothesis of this study was that blood loss is less important in UKA and that it can be performed without transfusion risk, even in preoperative anaemic patients.

METHODS

A comparative matched retrospective study on 105 (57F/48M) UKA patients with a mean (SD) age of 64 (10) years, a mean (SD) BMI of 29.5 (5) kg/m(2) and a mean (SD) preoperative haemoglobin (Hb) level of 13.7 (1.5) g/dl was matched with 105 TKA patients for age, BMI, gender, ASA score and preoperative alignment. Blood loss was measured peroperatively and as a substitute for blood loss by mean Hb and haematocrit drop at day 2 and 4 postoperatively.

RESULTS

Mean (SD) visible blood loss was lower for UKA [20 (10) cc vs. 110 (10) cc; P < 0.0001]. Mean (SD) Hb levels were higher for UKA compared to TKA at day 2 [12.9 (1.4) vs. 12.1 (1.4) g/dl; P < 0.0001], day 4 [12.7 (1.4) vs. 11.5 (1.6) g/dl; P < 0.0001] and day 21 [13.2 (1.4) vs. 12.7 (1.3) g/dl; P = 0.0185]. Hidden blood loss was more important for TKA (0.2 vs. 0.6 g/dl). Transfusion rates were 0 % for UKA and 2 % for TKA. Transfused patients were all female with moderate preoperative anaemia (Hb < 11 g/dl) undergoing TKA.

CONCLUSIONS

Haemoglobin drop is higher with more hidden blood loss in TKA. Patients with preoperative anaemia can undergo UKA without a risk for transfusion; however, women with moderate anaemia planned for TKA are at risk. The transfusion rate for TKA is, however, very low, and so, expected survival of the implant versus risk of co-morbidity should be discussed with the patient.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic study, Level III.

Advances in arthroscopy-indications and therapeutic applications

Advances in optical technology, instrumentation and implants now enable arthroscopic surgery to be performed on all large joints and most small joints of the limbs. Arthroscopic techniques are usually a development of surgical procedures previously performed through a large open incision, although the critical element of each procedure (for example removal of a torn meniscus) usually remains unchanged. The smaller size of incisions and reduction in tissue damage associated with arthroscopic surgery can reduce morbidity and complications. Therapeutic arthroscopy now encompasses excision, reconstruction and replacement of damaged or abnormal tissue. Improvements in the accuracy of MRI, CT and high-definition ultrasonography have limited the use of diagnostic arthroscopy to rare indications, but in the past 10 years the rates of some arthroscopic surgeries have increased by over 7-fold. Considerable variation in the type and utilization of arthroscopic procedures exists in practice, partly explained by the slow diffusion of new techniques and technology, but also by differences in clinician and patient beliefs and expectations. This Review reflects on both the success of arthroscopy and the general lack of evidence-based assessment of the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of arthroscopic procedures-a clear sign that more clinical trials in this field are required.

Strategies to reduce variation in the use of surgery

Provision rates for surgery vary widely in relation to identifiable need, suggesting that reduction of this variation might be appropriate. The definition of unwarranted variation is difficult because the boundaries of acceptable practice are wide, and information about patient preference is lacking. Very little direct research evidence exists on the modification of variations in surgery rates, so inferences must be drawn from research on the alteration of overall rates. The available evidence has large gaps, which suggests that some proposed strategies produce only marginal change. Micro-level interventions target decision making that affects individuals, whereas macro-level interventions target health-care systems with the use of financial, regulatory, or incentivisation strategies. Financial and regulatory changes can have major effects on provision rates, but these effects are often complex and can include unintended adverse effects. The net effects of micro-level strategies (such as improvement of evidence and dissemination of evidence, and support for shared decision making) can be smaller, but better directed. Further research is needed to identify what level of variation in surgery rates is appropriate in a specific context, and how variation can be reduced where desirable.

Total or Partial Knee Arthroplasty Trial - TOPKAT: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

In the majority of patients with osteoarthritis of the knee the disease originates in the medial compartment. There are two fundamentally different approaches to knee replacement for patients with unicompartmental disease: some surgeons feel that it is always best to replace both the knee compartments with a total knee replacement (TKR); whereas others feel it is best to replace just the damaged component of the knee using a partial or unicompartment replacement (UKR). Both interventions are established and well-documented procedures. Little evidence exists to prove the clinical and cost-effectiveness of either management option. This provides an explanation for the high variation in treatment of choice by individual surgeons for the same knee pathology.The aim of the TOPKAT study will be to assess the clinical and cost effectiveness of TKRs compared to UKRs in patients with medial compartment osteoarthritis.

METHODS/DESIGN

The design of the study is a single layer multicentre superiority type randomised controlled trial of unilateral knee replacement patients. Blinding will not be possible as the surgical scars for each procedure differ.We aim to recruit 500 patients from approximately 28 secondary care orthopaedic units from across the UK including district general and teaching hospitals. Participants will be randomised to either UKR or TKR. Randomisation will occur using a web-based randomisation system. The study is pragmatic in terms of implant selection for the knee replacement operation. Participants will be followed up for 5 years. The primary outcome is the Oxford Knee Score, which will be collected via questionnaires at 2 months, 1 year and then annually to 5 years. Secondary outcomes will include cost-effectiveness, patient satisfaction and complications data.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN03013488; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01352247.

Uncertainties surrounding the choice of surgical treatment for 'bone on bone' medial compartment osteoarthritis of the knee

A number of different surgical interventions can be used for treating antero-medial osteoarthritis (AMOA) of the knee and this choice can present challenges for patient's decision-making. Patients with AMOA can undergo Total Knee Replacement (TKR), Unicompartmental Knee Replacement (UKR) or High Tibial Osteotomy (HTO) for the same pathology. However many uncertainties still exist as to deciding which operation is best for individual patients and the Orthopaedic community has failed to systematically compare treatment options. The relative lack of scientifically based evidence has impacted on the ability to provide clear guidelines on treatment choice, patient suitability and direct patient preference for treatment. This paper, using available evidence, discusses the issue and offers some suggestions for future development.