Comparison of surgical or non-surgical management for non-acute anterior cruciate ligament injury: the ACL SNNAP RCT.

Background: Anterior cruciate ligament injury of the knee is common and leads to decreased activity and risk of secondary osteoarthritis of the knee. Management of patients with a non-acute anterior cruciate ligament injury can be non-surgical (rehabilitation) or surgical (reconstruction). However, insufficient evidence exists to guide treatment. Objective(s): To determine in patients with non-acute anterior cruciate ligament injury and symptoms of instability whether a strategy of surgical management (reconstruction) without prior rehabilitation was more clinically and cost-effective than non-surgical management (rehabilitation). Design: A pragmatic, multicentre, superiority, randomised controlled trial with two-arm parallel groups and 1:1 allocation. Due to the nature of the interventions, no blinding could be carried out. Setting: Twenty-nine NHS orthopaedic units in the United Kingdom. Participants: Participants with a symptomatic (instability) non-acute anterior cruciate ligament-injured knee. Interventions: Patients in the surgical management arm underwent surgical anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction as soon as possible and without any further rehabilitation. Patients in the rehabilitation arm attended physiotherapy sessions and only were listed for reconstructive surgery on continued instability following rehabilitation. Surgery following initial rehabilitation was an expected outcome for many patients and within protocol. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score 4 at 18 months post randomisation. Secondary outcomes included return to sport/activity, intervention-related complications, patient satisfaction, expectations of activity, generic health quality of life, knee-specific quality of life and resource usage. Results: Three hundred and sixteen participants were recruited between February 2017 and April 2020 with 156 randomised to surgical management and 160 to rehabilitation. Forty-one per cent (n = 65) of those allocated to rehabilitation underwent subsequent reconstruction within 18 months with 38% (n = 61) completing rehabilitation and not undergoing surgery. Seventy-two per cent (n = 113) of those allocated to surgery underwent reconstruction within 18 months. Follow-up at the primary outcome time point was 78% (n = 248; surgical, n = 128; rehabilitation, n = 120). Both groups improved over time. Adjusted mean Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score 4 scores at 18 months had increased to 73.0 in the surgical arm and to 64.6 in the rehabilitation arm. The adjusted mean difference was 7.9 (95% confidence interval 2.5 to 13.2; p = 0.005) in favour of surgical management. The per-protocol analyses supported the intention-to-treat results, with all treatment effects favouring surgical management at a level reaching statistical significance. There was a significant difference in Tegner Activity Score at 18 months. Sixty-eight per cent (n = 65) of surgery patients did not reach their expected activity level compared to 73% (n = 63) in the rehabilitation arm. There were no differences between groups in surgical complications (n = 1 surgery, n = 2 rehab) or clinical events (n = 11 surgery, n = 12 rehab). Of surgery patients, 82.9% were satisfied compared to 68.1% of rehabilitation patients. Health economic analysis found that surgical management led to improved health-related quality of life compared to non-surgical management (0.052 quality-adjusted life-years, p = 0.177), but with higher NHS healthcare costs (£1107, p < 0.001). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the surgical management programme versus rehabilitation was £19,346 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Using £20,000-30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year thresholds, surgical management is cost-effective in the UK setting with a probability of being the most cost-effective option at 51% and 72%, respectively. Limitations: Not all surgical patients underwent reconstruction, but this did not affect trial interpretation. The adherence to physiotherapy was patchy, but the trial was designed as pragmatic. Conclusions: Surgical management (reconstruction) for non-acute anterior cruciate ligament-injured patients was superior to non-surgical management (rehabilitation). Although physiotherapy can still provide benefit, later-presenting non-acute anterior cruciate ligament-injured patients benefit more from surgical reconstruction without delaying for a prior period of rehabilitation. Future work: Confirmatory studies and those to explore the influence of fidelity and compliance will be useful. Trial registration: This trial is registered as Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN10110685; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02980367. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute of Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 14/140/63) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 27. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

The study aimed to find out whether it is better to offer surgical reconstruction or rehabilitation first to patients with a more long-standing injury of their anterior cruciate ligament in their knee. This injury causes physical giving way of the knee and/or sensations of it being wobbly (instability). The instability can affect daily activities, work, sport and can lead to arthritis. There are two main treatment options for this problem: non-surgical rehabilitation (prescribed exercises and advice from physiotherapists) or an operation by a surgeon to replace the damaged ligament (anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction). Although studies have highlighted the best option for a recently injured knee, the best management was not known for patients with a long-standing injury, perhaps occurring several months previously. Because the surgery is expensive to the NHS (around £100 million per year), it was also important to look at the costs involved. We carried out a study recruiting 316 non-acute anterior cruciate ligament-injured patients from 29 different hospitals and allocated each patient to either surgery or rehabilitation as their treatment option. We measured how well they did with special function and activity scores, patient satisfaction and costs of treatment. Patients in both groups improved substantially. It was expected that some patients in the rehabilitation group would want surgery if non-surgical management was unsuccessful. Forty-one per cent of patients who initially underwent rehabilitation subsequently elected to have reconstructive surgery. Overall, the patients allocated to the surgical reconstruction group had better results in terms of knee function and stability, activity level and satisfaction with treatment than patients allocated to the non-operative rehabilitation group. There were few problems or complications with either treatment option. Although the surgery was a more expensive treatment option, it was found to be cost-effective in the UK setting. The evidence can be discussed in shared decision-making with anterior cruciate ligament-injured patients. Both strategies of management led to improvement. Although a rehabilitation strategy can be beneficial, especially for recently injured patients, it is advised that later-presenting non-acute and more long-standing anterior cruciate ligament-injured patients undergo surgical reconstruction without necessarily delaying for a period of rehabilitation.

Patient-Relevant Outcomes Following First Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty, by Diagnosis: An Analysis of Implant Survivorship, Mortality, Serious Medical Complications, and Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Utilizing the National Joint Registry Data Set.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to investigate patient-relevant outcomes following first revision total knee arthroplasties (rTKAs) performed for different indications. METHODS: This population-based cohort study utilized data from the United Kingdom National Joint Registry, Hospital Episode Statistics Admitted Patient Care, National Health Service Patient-Reported Outcome Measures, and the Civil Registrations of Death. Patients undergoing a first rTKA between January 1, 2009, and June 30, 2019, were included in our data set. Patient-relevant outcomes included implant survivorship (up to 11 years postoperatively), mortality and serious medical complications (up to 90 days postoperatively), and patient-reported outcome measures (at 6 months postoperatively). RESULTS: A total of 24,540 first rTKAs were analyzed. The patient population was 54% female and 62% White, with a mean age at the first rTKA of 69 years. At 2 years postoperatively, the cumulative incidence of re-revision surgery ranged from 2.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.9% to 3.4%) following rTKA for progressive arthritis to 16.3% (95% CI, 15.2% to 17.4%) following rTKA for infection. The mortality rate at 90 days was highest following rTKA for fracture (3.6% [95% CI, 2.5% to 5.1%]) and for infection (1.8% [95% CI, 1.5% to 2.2%]) but was <0.5% for other indications. The rate of serious medical complications requiring hospital admission within 90 days was highest for patients treated for fracture (21.8% [95% CI, 17.9% to 26.3%]) or infection (12.5% [95% CI, 11.2% to 13.9%]) and was lowest for those treated for progressive arthritis (4.3% [95% CI, 3.3% to 5.5%]). Patients who underwent rTKA for stiffness or unexplained pain had some of the poorest postoperative joint function (mean Oxford Knee Score, 24 and 25 points, respectively) and had the lowest proportion of responders (48% and 55%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: This study found large differences in patient-relevant outcomes among different indications for first rTKA. The rate of complications was highest following rTKA for fracture or infection. Although rTKA resulted in large improvements in joint function for most patients, those who underwent surgery for stiffness and unexplained pain had worse outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Consensus statement on unicompartmental knee replacement: A collaboration between BASK and EKS.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to deliver consensus recommendations for the clinical practice of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA). METHODS: Members of the British Association for Surgery of the Knee (BASK) and European Knee Society (EKS) were invited to attend a joint meeting in London, UK (December 2019). A formal consensus process was undertaken at the meeting incorporating a multiple round Delphi exercise, with group discussion of areas of agreement and disagreement between rounds. Eighty delegates attended the meeting and five consensus statements were considered and revised, with a threshold level of 80% agreement required as the definition consensus. RESULTS: Five consensus statements with accompanying supporting evidence and text were agreed following two rounds of the process: (1) UKA should be offered as a successful alternative to TKA in patients undergoing arthroplasty who meet agreed indications; (2) When consenting a patient for UKA, information including the benefits and risks that are specific to UKA, should be tailored to and discussed with the individual patient; (3) Evidence suggests that surgeons should avoid low-volume use of UKA to optimise outcomes for their patients; (4) Surgeons should use the contemporary evidence-based indications and contraindications for medial UKA; (5) Knee arthroplasty surgeons should have exposure to and training in UKA. CONCLUSIONS: The agreed joint BASK-EKS consensus statements on UKA practice are recommended as the contemporary basis of optimal care for these patients and should inform future training and service developments.

Patella Denervation With Circumferential Electrocautery in Primary Knee Arthroplasty: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical effectiveness of patella rim electrocautery "denervation" versus no denervation in patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA). METHODS: We conducted a single-center, double-blind randomized controlled trial. Patients aged 40 years or older, due to undergo a TKA who did not have patella resurfacing (usual care) were randomized with or without circumferential patella electrocautery. This was undertaken according to a randomly generated sequence of treatment allocation that was placed into numbered, sealed opaque envelopes. Participants were blinded to treatment allocation. There was no crossover. The primary outcome was Oxford Knee Score at 1 year postoperatively. Secondary outcomes were Bartlett Patella Score, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC), and 12-Item Short Form Survey. Linear regression analyses were performed with adjustments by age, sex, and baseline (preoperative) scores. There were 142 participants recruited, of which 49 (35%) were allocated to the denervation intervention. Recruitment was stopped early when interim statistical analyses confirmed adequate numbers in both groups despite an imbalance in early treatment allocation rates due to the randomization method. The mean patient age was 71 years (range, 50 to 85) and 51% (n = 74) were women. RESULTS: No difference in Oxford Knee Score was detected at 1 year (mean difference [MD] 1.87; 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.28 to 5.03). No difference was detected in Bartlett Patella Score (MD 0.490; 95% CI -1.61 to 2.59) or 12-Item Short Form Survey (MD 0.196; 95% CI -2.54 to 2.93). A statistically significant difference in WOMAC was detected, but at a level less than the minimal clinically important difference for WOMAC (MD 4.79; 95% CI 1.05 to 8.52). CONCLUSION: No clinically relevant benefit was detected from patella rim electrocautery in patients undergoing TKA who did not have patella resurfacing (including no benefit in terms of anterior knee pain). This treatment is therefore not recommended for clinical practice. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 1.

Rehabilitation versus surgical reconstruction for non-acute anterior cruciate ligament injury (ACL SNNAP): a pragmatic randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture is a common debilitating injury that can cause instability of the knee. We aimed to investigate the best management strategy between reconstructive surgery and non-surgical treatment for patients with a non-acute ACL injury and persistent symptoms of instability. METHODS: We did a pragmatic, multicentre, superiority, randomised controlled trial in 29 secondary care National Health Service orthopaedic units in the UK. Patients with symptomatic knee problems (instability) consistent with an ACL injury were eligible. We excluded patients with meniscal pathology with characteristics that indicate immediate surgery. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by computer to either surgery (reconstruction) or rehabilitation (physiotherapy but with subsequent reconstruction permitted if instability persisted after treatment), stratified by site and baseline Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score-4 domain version (KOOS4). This management design represented normal practice. The primary outcome was KOOS4 at 18 months after randomisation. The principal analyses were intention-to-treat based, with KOOS4 results analysed using linear regression. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN10110685, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02980367. FINDINGS: Between Feb 1, 2017, and April 12, 2020, we recruited 316 patients. 156 (49%) participants were randomly assigned to the surgical reconstruction group and 160 (51%) to the rehabilitation group. Mean KOOS4 at 18 months was 73·0 (SD 18·3) in the surgical group and 64·6 (21·6) in the rehabilitation group. The adjusted mean difference was 7·9 (95% CI 2·5-13·2; p=0·0053) in favour of surgical management. 65 (41%) of 160 patients allocated to rehabilitation underwent subsequent surgery according to protocol within 18 months. 43 (28%) of 156 patients allocated to surgery did not receive their allocated treatment. We found no differences between groups in the proportion of intervention-related complications. INTERPRETATION: Surgical reconstruction as a management strategy for patients with non-acute ACL injury with persistent symptoms of instability was clinically superior and more cost-effective in comparison with rehabilitation management. FUNDING: The UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

Serious adverse event rates and reoperation after arthroscopic shoulder surgery: population based cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To provide clinicians and patients with accurate risk estimates of serious adverse events after common elective shoulder arthroscopic procedures, including reoperation within one year. DESIGN: Population based cohort study. SETTING: Hospital Episode Statistics for NHS England, including civil registration mortality data from the Office for National Statistics. PARTICIPANTS: 288 250 arthroscopic shoulder procedures performed in 261 248 patients aged ≥16 years between 1 April 2009 and 31 March 2017. Elective procedures were grouped into subacromial decompression, rotator cuff repair, acromioclavicular joint excision, glenohumeral stabilisation, and frozen shoulder release. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes were rates of serious adverse events (mortality, pulmonary embolism, pneumonia, myocardial infarction, acute kidney injury, stroke, and urinary tract infection) requiring inpatient care within 90 days post-surgery. Secondary outcomes were specific adverse event rates at 90 days, and reoperations (including for deep infection) within one year. RESULTS: The overall rate of complications within 90 days after arthroscopic shoulder surgery (including reoperation) was low at 1.2% (95% confidence interval 1.2% to 1.3%), with one in 81 patients at risk, and varied according to type of procedure, from 0.6% (0.5% to 0.8%) for glenohumeral stabilisation to 1.7% (1.5% to 1.8%) for frozen shoulder release. After adjustment for age, comorbidities, and sex, no effect of procedure type was observed. Pneumonia was the most common adverse event (0.3%, 0.3% to 0.4%), with one in 303 patients at risk. Pulmonary embolic events were rare, at 0.1% (0.1% to 0.1%), with one in 1428 patients at risk. At one year, the overall rate for reoperation was 3.8% (3.8% to 3.9%), with one in 26 patients at risk, ranging from 2.7% (2.5% to 3.0%) for glenohumeral stabilisation to 5.7% (5.4% to 6.1%) for frozen shoulder release. The overall rate of further surgery for deep infection was low, at 0.1% (0.1% to 0.1%), with one in 1111 patients at risk, but was higher after rotator cuff repair (0.2%, 0.2% to 0.2%), with one in 526 patients at risk. Over the study period the number of arthroscopic shoulder procedures increased, except for subacromial decompression, which decreased. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study suggest that risks of serious adverse events associated with common shoulder arthroscopy procedures are low. Nevertheless, serious complications do occur, and include the risk of reoperation in one in 26 patients within one year. STUDY REGISTRATION: Clinical. TRIALS: gov NCT03573765.

Patient beliefs and perceptions play a crucial role in the decision-making process when managing a meniscal tear. A qualitative systematic review of the literature.

INTRODUCTION: There has been an increase in research on the effectiveness of treatment options for the management of meniscal tears. However, there is very little evidence about the patient experiences of meniscal tears. AIM: To summarise the available qualitative evidence on patients' experiences and expectations of meniscal tears. METHOD: A search of EMBASE, Medline, Sociofile and Web of Science up to November 2020 was performed to identify studies reporting patient experiences of meniscal tears. Studies were critically appraised using the CASP (Critical Appraisal Skills Program) checklist, and a meta-synthesis was performed to generate third-order constructs (new themes). RESULTS: Two studies reporting semi-structured interviews from 34 participants (24 male; 10 female) were included. The mean interview length ranged from 16 to 45 min. Five themes were generated: (1) the imaging (MRI) results are a key driver in the decision-making process, (2) surgery is perceived to be the definitive and quicker approach, (3) physiotherapy and exercise is a slower approach which brought success over time, (4) patient perceptions and preferences are important in the clinical decision-making process and, (5) the impact on patient lives is a huge driver in seeking care and treatment decisions. CONCLUSION: This is the first study to summarise the qualitative evidence on patient experiences with meniscal tears. The themes generated demonstrate the importance of patient perceptions of MRI findings and timing of treatment success as important factors in the decision-making process. This study demonstrates the need to strengthen our understanding of patients' experiences of meniscal tears.

Patient-reported outcome measures following revision knee replacement: a review of PROM instrument utilisation and measurement properties using the COSMIN checklist.

OBJECTIVES: To identify: (1) patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) used to evaluate symptoms, health status or quality of life following discretionary revision (or re-revision) knee joint replacement, and (2) validated joint-specific PROMs, their measurement properties and quality of evidence. DESIGN: (1) Scoping review; (2) systematic review following the COnsensus-based Standards for selection of health status Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, AMED and PsycINFO were searched from inception to 1 July 2020 using the Oxford PROM filter unlimited by publication date or language. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Studies reporting on the development, validation or outcome of a joint-specific PROM for revision knee joint replacement were included. RESULTS: 51 studies reported PROM outcomes using eight joint-specific PROMs. 27 out of 51 studies (52.9%) were published within the last 5 years. PROM development was rated 'inadequate' for each of the eight PROMs studied. Validation studies were available for only three joint-specific PROMs: Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Lower Extremity Activity Scale (LEAS) and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC). 25 out of 27 (92.6%) measurement properties were rated insufficient, indeterminate or not assessed. The quality of supporting evidence was mostly low or very low. Each of the validated PROMs was rated 'B' (potential for recommendation but require further evaluation). CONCLUSION: Joint-specific PROMs are increasingly used to report outcomes following revision knee joint replacement, but these instruments have insufficient evidence for their validity. Future research should be directed toward understanding the measurement properties of these instruments in order to inform clinical trials and observational studies evaluating the outcomes from joint-specific PROMs.

Differences in mortality and complication rates following revision knee arthroplasty performed for urgent versus elective indications.

AIMS: To compare rates of serious adverse events in patients undergoing revision knee arthroplasty with consideration of the indication for revision (urgent versus elective indications), and compare these with primary arthroplasty and re-revision arthroplasty. METHODS: Patients undergoing primary knee arthroplasty were identified in the national Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) between 1 April 1997 to 31 March 2017. Subsequent revision and re-revision arthroplasty procedures in the same patients and same knee were identified. The primary outcome was 90-day mortality and a logistic regression model was used to investigate factors associated with 90-day mortality and secondary adverse outcomes, including infection (undergoing surgery), pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, and stroke. Urgent indications for revision arthroplasty were defined as infection or fracture, and all other indications (e.g. loosening, instability, wear) were included in the elective indications cohort. RESULTS: A total of 939,021 primary knee arthroplasty procedures were included (939,021 patients), of which 40,854 underwent subsequent revision arthroplasty, and 9,100 underwent re-revision arthroplasty. Revision surgery for elective indications was associated with a 90-day rate of mortality of 0.44% (135/30,826; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.37 to 0.52) which was comparable to primary knee arthroplasty (0.46%; 4,292/939,021; 95% CI 0.44 to 0.47). Revision arthroplasty for infection was associated with a much higher mortality of 2.04% (184/9037; 95% CI 1.75 to 2.35; odds ratio (OR) 3.54; 95% CI 2.81 to 4.46), as was revision for periprosthetic fracture at 5.25% (52/991; 95% CI 3.94 to 6.82; OR 6.23; 95% CI 4.39 to 8.85). Higher rates of pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, and stroke were also observed in the infection and fracture cohort. CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing revision arthroplasty for urgent indications (infection or fracture) are at higher risk of mortality and serious adverse events in comparison to primary knee arthroplasty and revision arthroplasty for elective indications. These findings will be important for patient consent and shared decision-making and should inform service design for this patient cohort. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(10):1578-1585.

Temporal Trends and Geographical Variation in Dupuytren Disease Surgery in England: A Population-Based Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Dupuytren disease (DD) is a common fibroproliferative disease of the palmar fascia. The mainstay of DD treatment in England is surgery with either percutaneous needle fasciotomy, limited fasciectomy, or dermofasciectomy. This study aimed to investigate the temporal trends and geographical variation of primary DD surgery in England. METHODS: A longitudinal population-based cohort study was perfomed using the Hospital Episode Statistics database from April 1, 2007, to March 31, 2017. Directly standarized rates were estimated over time (between financial years 2007-2008 and 2016-2017) and by geographic region (by clinical commissioning groups [CCGs]; financial years 2010-2011, 2013-2014, and 2016-2017). The Office for National Statistics midyear population estimates were used as the reference population. MAIN FINDINGS: Primary DD surgery was undertaken at a steadily increasing rate from financial year 2007 to 2008, to 2016 to 2017 in England. There was a striking 3.6-fold variation in the rates of primary DD surgery among National Health Service CCGs in England place of residence. CONCLUSIONS: This significant variation in DD surgical treatment in England suggests a need for the development of standardized surgical practice across all CCGs and National Health Service hospitals, promoting equality of access to cost-effective health care.

Examination of a new mobile intermittent pneumatic compression device in healthy adults.

OBJECTIVE: Intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) is an alternative method of compression treatment designed to compress the leg and mimic ambulatory pump action to actively promote venous return. This study explores the efficacy of a new portable IPC device on tissue oxygenation (StO2) in two sitting positions. METHOD: In this quantitative, healthy single cohort study, participants were screened and recruited using Physical Activity Readiness Questionnaire (PAR-Q, Canada). Participants attended two separate one-hour sessions to evaluate StO2 in an upright chair-sitting position and in a long-sitting position. StO2 was recorded for 20 minutes before, during and after a 20-minute intervention of the IPC device (Venapro, DJO Global, US). RESULTS: A total of 29 healthy volunteers took part in the study. A significant difference was seen between the two seating positions (p=0.003) with long-sitting showing a 12% higher StO2 level than chair-sitting post-intervention. A similar effect was seen in both sitting positions when analysing data over three timepoints (p=0.000). Post-hoc pairwise comparisons showed that significant improvements in StO2 (p≤0.000) were seen from baseline, throughout the intervention, continuing up to 15 minutes post-intervention, indicating a continued effect of the device after a short intervention. CONCLUSION: Increasing StO2 through short intervention sessions with this portable device has potential for use within various health and sports-based practices, improving tissue health, potentially reducing postoperative deep vein thrombosis (DVT) risk or inflammation. Such devices lend themselves to wide self-management implementation.

Manipulation Under Anesthetic After Primary Knee Arthroplasty Is Associated With a Higher Rate of Subsequent Revision Surgery.

AIM: To determine the association between manipulation under anesthetic (MUA) after primary knee arthroplasty and subsequent revision surgery. METHODS: Patients undergoing primary knee arthroplasty from April 2011 to April 2016 with minimum 1-year follow-up to April 2017 were identified from the national hospital episode statistics for England. The first arthroplasty per patient, per side, was included; cases with a record of subsequent infection or periprosthetic fracture were excluded. Patients undergoing MUA within 1 year to the same knee were identified, defining the populations for the MUA and non-MUA cohorts. Mortality-adjusted Kaplan-Meier survival analysis (revision arthroplasty) was performed to a maximum of 6 years. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to determine the hazard for revision, adjusting for type of primary arthroplasty, gender, age group, year, comorbidity index, obesity, regional deprivation, rurality, and ethnicity. RESULTS: A total of 309,650 primary arthroplasty cases (309,650 patients) were included. MUA within 1 year was recorded in 6882 patients (2.22%; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 2.17-2.28) defining the MUA cohort; all others were included in the parallel non-MUA cohort. At 6 years, the mortality-adjusted estimated implant survival rate in the MUA cohort was 91.2% (95% CI, 90.0-92.2) in comparison to 98.1% (95% CI, 98.0-98.2) in the non-MUA cohort. In the fully adjusted model, this corresponded to an adjusted hazard for revision of 5.03 (hazard ratio; 95% CI, 4.55-5.57). CONCLUSION: Patients who underwent MUA within 1 year of primary arthroplasty were at a 5-fold increased risk of subsequent revision even after excluding cases of infection or fracture. Further investigation of the etiology of stiffness after primary knee arthroplasty and the optimal treatment options to improve outcomes is justified.

Rates of knee arthroplasty in patients with a history of arthroscopic chondroplasty: results from a retrospective cohort study utilising the National Hospital Episode Statistics for England.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to analyse the rate of knee arthroplasty in the population of patients with a history of arthroscopic chondroplasty of the knee, in England, over 10 years, with comparison to general population data for patients without a history of chondroplasty. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: English Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data. PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS: Patients undergoing arthroscopic chondroplasty in England between 2007/2008 and 2016/2017 were identified. Patients undergoing previous arthroscopic knee surgery or simultaneous cruciate ligament reconstruction or microfracture in the same knee were excluded. OUTCOMES: Patients subsequently undergoing a knee arthroplasty in the same knee were identified and mortality-adjusted survival analysis was performed (survival without undergoing knee arthroplasty). A Cox proportional hazards model was used to identify factors associated with knee arthroplasty. Relative risk of knee arthroplasty (total or partial) in comparison to the general population was determined. RESULTS: Through 2007 to 2017, 157 730 eligible chondroplasty patients were identified. Within 1 year, 5.91% (7984/135 197; 95% CI 5.78 to 6.03) underwent knee arthroplasty and 14.22% (8145/57 267; 95% CI 13.94 to 14.51) within 5 years. Patients aged over 30 years with a history of chondroplasty were 17.32 times (risk ratio; 95% CI 16.81 to 17.84) more likely to undergo arthroplasty than the general population without a history of chondroplasty. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with cartilage lesions of the knee, treated with arthroscopic chondroplasty, are at greater risk of subsequent knee arthroplasty than the general population and for a proportion of patients, there is insufficient benefit to prevent the need for knee arthroplasty within 1 to 5 years. These important new data will inform patients of the anticipated outcomes following this procedure. The risk in comparison to non-operative treatment remains unknown and there is an urgent need for a randomised clinical trial in this population.

Paediatric and adolescent anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery.

AIMS: Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) surgery in children and the adolescent population has increased steadily over recent years. We used a national database to look at trends in ACL reconstruction and rates of serious complications, growth disturbance, and revision surgery, over 20 years. METHODS: All hospital episodes for patients undergoing ACL reconstruction, under the age of 20 years, between 1 April 1997 and 31 March 2017, were extracted by procedure code from the national Hospital Episode Statistics (HES). Population standardized rates of intervention were determined by age group and year of treatment. Subsequent rates of serious complications including reoperation for infection, growth disturbance (osteotomy, epiphysiodesis), revision reconstruction, and/or contralateral ACL reconstruction rates were determined. RESULTS: Over the 20 year period, 16,125 ACL reconstructions were included. The mean age of patients was 16.9 years (SD 2.0; 27.1% female, n = 4,374/16,125). The majority of procedures were observed in the 15 to 19 years age group. The rate of ACL reconstruction increased 29-fold from 1997 to 1998, to 2016 to 2017. Within 90 days of ACL reconstruction, the rate of reoperation for infection was 0.31% (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.23 to 0.41, n = 50/16,125) and the rate of pulmonary embolism was 0.037% (95%.CI 0.014 to 0.081, n = 6/16,125). Of those with minimum five-year follow-up following ACL reconstruction (n = 7,585), 1.00% of patients subsequently underwent an osteotomy (95% CI 0.79 to 1.25, n = 76/7,585), 0.09% an epiphysiodesis (95% CI 0.04 to 0.19, n = 7/7,585), 7.46% revision ACL reconstruction (95% CI 6.88 to 8.08, n = 566/7,585), and 6.37% contralateral ACL reconstruction (95% CI 5.83 to 6.94, n = 483/7,585). CONCLUSION: Rates of paediatric and adolescent ACL reconstruction have increased 29-fold over the last 20 years. Despite the increasing rate in the younger population, the risk of serious complications, including further surgery for growth disturbance is very low. The results of our study provide a point of reference for shared decision making in the management of ACL injury in the paediatric and adolescent population. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(2):239-245.

Arthroscopic partial meniscectomy for meniscal tears of the knee: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the benefit of arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) in adults with a meniscal tear and knee pain in three defined populations (taking account of the comparison intervention): (A) all patients (any type of meniscal tear with or without radiographic osteoarthritis); (B) patients with any type of meniscal tear in a non-osteoarthritic knee; and (C) patients with an unstable meniscal tear in a non-osteoarthritic knee. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATASOURCES: A search of MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Scopus, Web of Science, Clinicaltrials.gov and ISRCTN was performed, unlimited by language or publication date (inception to 18 October 2018). ELIGIBILITYCRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials performed in adults with meniscal tears, comparing APM versus (1) non-surgical intervention; (2) pharmacological intervention; (3) surgical intervention; and (4) no intervention. RESULTS: Ten trials were identified: seven compared with non-surgery, one pharmacological and two surgical. Findings were limited by small sample size, small number of trials and cross-over of participants to APM from comparator interventions. In group A (all patients) receiving APM versus non-surgical intervention (physiotherapy), at 6-12 months, there was a small mean improvement in knee pain (standardised mean difference [SMD] 0.22 [95% CI 0.03 to 0.40]; five trials, 943 patients; I2 48%; Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation [GRADE]: low), knee-specific quality of life (SMD 0.43 [95% CI 0.10 to 0.75]; three trials, 350 patients; I2 56%; GRADE: low) and knee function (SMD 0.18 [95% CI 0.04 to 0.33]; six trials, 1050 patients; I2 27%; GRADE: low). When the analysis was restricted to people without osteoarthritis (group B), there was a small to moderate improvement in knee pain (SMD 0.35 [95% CI 0.04 to 0.66]; three trials, 402 patients; I2 58%; GRADE: very low), knee-specific quality of life (SMD 0.59 [95% CI 0.11 to 1.07]; two trials, 244 patients; I2 71%; GRADE: low) and knee function (SMD 0.30 [95% CI 0.06 to 0.53]; four trials, 507 patients; I2 44%; GRADE: very low). There was no improvement in knee pain, function or quality of life in patients receiving APM compared with placebo surgery at 6-12 months in group A or B (pain: SMD 0.08 [95% CI -0.24 to 0.41]; one trial, 146 patients; GRADE: low; function: SMD -0.08 [95% CI -0.41 to 0.24]; one trial, 146 patients; GRADE: high; quality of life: SMD 0.05 [95% CI -0.27 to 0.38]; one trial; 146 patients; GRADE: high). No trials were identified for people in group C. CONCLUSION: Performing APM in all patients with knee pain and a meniscal tear is not appropriate, and surgical treatment should not be considered the first-line intervention. There may, however, be a small-to-moderate benefit from APM compared with physiotherapy for patients without osteoarthritis. No trial has been limited to patients failing non-operative treatment or patients with an unstable meniscal tear in a non-arthritic joint; research is needed to establish the value of APM in this population. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42017056844.

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction and meniscal repair rates have both increased in the past 20 years in England: hospital statistics from 1997 to 2017.

OBJECTIVES: We investigated the temporal trend and the geographical variation in the rate of an anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction and meniscal repair (MR) performed in England during a 20-year window. METHODS: All hospital episodes for patients undergoing ACL reconstruction or MR between 1 April 1997 and 31 March 2017 were extracted by procedure code from the national hospital episode statistics. Age-standardised and sex-standardised rates of surgery were calculated using Office for National Statistics population data as the denominator and analysed over time both nationally and regionally by National Health Service clinical commissioning group (CCG). RESULTS: Between 1997-1998 and 2016-2017, there were 133 270 cases of ACL reconstruction (124 489 patients) and 42 651 cases of MR (41 120 patients) (isolated or simultaneous). Nationally, the rate of ACL reconstruction increased 12-fold from 2.0/100K population (95% CI 1.9 to 2.1) in 1997-1998 to 24.2/100K (95% CI 23.8 to 24.6) in 2016-2017. The rate of MR increased more than twofold from 3.0/100K (95% CI 2.8 to 3.1) in 1997-1998 to 7.3/100K (95% CI 7.1 to 7.5) in 2016-2017. Of these cases, the rate of simultaneous ACL reconstruction and MR was 2.6/100K (95% CI 2.5 to 2.8) in 2016/2017. In 2016-2017, for patients aged 20-29, the sex-standardised rate of ACL reconstruction was 76.9/100K (95% CI 74.9 to 78.9) and for MR was 19.8/100K (95% CI 18.8 to 20.9). Practice varied by region-in 2016-2017, 14.5% (30/207) of the CCGs performed more than twice the national average rate of ACL reconstruction and 15.0% (31/207) performed more than twice the national average rate of MR. CONCLUSIONS: The rate of ACL reconstruction (12-fold) and MR (2.4-fold) has increased in England over the last two decades. There is variation in these rates across geographical regions and further work is required to deliver standardised treatment guidance for appropriate use.

Mortality and adverse joint outcomes following septic arthritis of the native knee: a longitudinal cohort study of patients receiving arthroscopic washout.

BACKGROUND: The short-term and long-term consequences of septic arthritis are uncertain. We aimed to determine risk of mortality and adverse joint outcomes following septic arthritis of the native knee. METHODS: We did a retrospective cohort study in patients who received arthroscopic knee washout for septic arthritis in England between April 1, 1997, and March 31, 2017, using data in the national Hospital Episode Statistics database. Patients with previous knee surgery to the same knee were excluded. Mortality within 90 days, adverse joint outcomes (arthrodesis, amputation, arthroplasty) within 1 year, and arthroplasty within 15 years were determined. Mortality in patients with a primary admitting diagnosis of septic arthritis (ICD-10) was compared with that in patients in whom septic arthritis was a secondary diagnosis. FINDINGS: 12 132 patients were included (mean age 56·6 years [SD 24·9]) of whom 4307 (36%) were female. In 10 195 (84%) patients with septic arthritis as the primary admitting diagnosis, 90-day mortality was 7·05% (95% CI 6·56-7·57; 719 patients), rising to 22·69% (20·80-24·68; 418 patients) in 1842 patients older than 79 years. Secondary septic arthritis diagnosis versus primary diagnosis was associated with an adjusted odds ratio for mortality of 2·10 (95% CI 1·79-2·46; p<0·0001). In 11 393 patients with at least 1 year follow-up, the 1 year rates were 0·13% (95% CI 0·07-0·22; 15 patients) for arthrodesis, 0·40% (0·30-0·54; 46 patients) for amputation, and 1·33%; (1·13-1·56; 152 patients) for arthroplasty. Within 15 years, 159 (8·76%; 95% CI 7·50-10·15) of 1816 patients had received arthroplasty, corresponding to an annual risk of arthroplasty that was about six times that of the general population (risk ratio 6·14, 95% CI 4·95-7·62; p<0·0001). INTERPRETATION: The consequences of septic knee arthritis in patients undergoing arthroscopic knee washout are serious. These findings highlight the potentially devastating outcomes associated with sepsis from musculoskeletal joint infection. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research.

Long-term rates of knee arthroplasty in a cohort of 834 393 patients with a history of arthroscopic partial meniscectomy.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to determine the long-term risk of undergoing knee arthroplasty in a cohort of patients with meniscal tears who had undergone arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective national cohort of patients with a history of isolated APM was identified over a 20-year period. Patients with prior surgery to the same knee were excluded. The primary outcome was knee arthroplasty. Hazard ratios (HRs) were adjusted by patient age, sex, year of APM, Charlson comorbidity index, regional deprivation, rurality, and ethnicity. Risk of arthroplasty in the index knee was compared with the patient's contralateral knee (with vs without a history of APM). A total of 834 393 patients were included (mean age 50 years; 37% female). RESULTS: Of those with at least 15 years of follow-up, 13.49% (16 256/120 493; 95% confidence interval (CI) 13.30 to 13.69) underwent subsequent arthroplasty within this time. In women, 22.07% (95% CI 21.64 to 22.51) underwent arthroplasty within 15 years compared with 9.91% of men (95% CI 9.71 to 10.12), corresponding to a risk ratio (RR) of 2.23 (95% CI 2.16 to 2.29). Relative to the general population, patients with a history of APM were over ten times more likely (RR 10.27; 95% CI 10.07 to 10.47) to undergo arthroplasty rising to almost 40 times more likely (RR 39.62; 95% CI 27.68 to 56.70) at a younger age (30 to 39 years). In patients with a history of APM in only one knee, the risk of arthroplasty in that knee was greatly elevated in comparison with the contralateral knee (no APM; HR 2.99; 95% CI 2.95 to 3.02). CONCLUSION: Patients developing a meniscal tear undergoing APM are at greater risk of knee arthroplasty than the general population. This risk is three-times greater in the patient's affected knee than in the contralateral knee. Women in the cohort were at double the risk of progressing to knee arthroplasty compared with men. These important new reference data will inform shared decision making and enhance approaches to treatment, prevention, and clinical surveillance. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:1071-1080.

Rates of knee arthroplasty in anterior cruciate ligament reconstructed patients: a longitudinal cohort study of 111,212 procedures over 20 years.

Background and purpose - Long-term rates of knee arthroplasty in patients with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury who undergo ligament reconstruction (ACLr) are unclear. We determined this risk of arthroplasty through comparison with the general population.Patients and methods - All patients undergoing an ACLr in England, 1997-2017, were identified from national hospital statistics. Patients subsequently undergoing a knee arthroplasty were identified and survival analysis was performed (survival without undergoing knee arthroplasty). A Cox proportional hazards model was used to identify factors associated with knee arthroplasty. Relative risk of knee arthroplasty (total or partial) in comparison with the general population was determined.Results - 111,212 ACLr patients were eligible for analysis (mean age 29; 77% male). Overall, 0.46% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.40-0.52) ACLr patients underwent knee arthroplasty within 5 years, 0.97% (CI 0.82-1.2) within 10 years, and 1.8% (CI 1.4-2.3) within 15 years. Knee arthroplasty risk was greater in older age groups and women. In comparison with the general population, the relative risk of undergoing arthroplasty at a younger age (at time of arthroplasty) was elevated: at 30-39 years (risk ratio [RR] 20; CI 11-35), 40-49 years (RR 7.5; CI 5.5-10), and 50-59 years (RR 2.5; CI 1.8-3.5), but not 60-69 years (RR 1.7; CI 0.93-3.2).Interpretation - Patients sustaining an ACL injury who undergo ACLr are at elevated risk of subsequent knee arthroplasty in comparison with the general population. Although the absolute rate of arthroplasty is low, the risk of arthroplasty at a younger age is particularly elevated. When the outcome of shared decision-making is ACLr, this data will help inform patients and clinicians about the long-term risk of requiring knee arthroplasty.

Rates of Adverse Outcomes and Revision Surgery After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Study of 104,255 Procedures Using the National Hospital Episode Statistics Database for England, UK.

BACKGROUND: After an anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury, ACL reconstruction is an elective procedure, and therefore, an understanding of the attributable risk from undergoing ACL reconstruction is necessary for patients to make a fully informed treatment decision. PURPOSE: To determine the absolute risk of adverse outcomes including reoperation after ACL reconstruction with comparison, where possible, to the rate of adverse events reported in the general population. STUDY DESIGN: Descriptive epidemiology study. METHODS: National hospital data on all ACL reconstructions performed in England between April 1, 1997, and March 31, 2017, were analyzed. Revision cases, bilateral procedures within 6 months, and cases with concurrent cartilage or multiple ligament surgery were excluded. The primary outcome was the occurrence of at least 1 serious complication (myocardial infarction, stroke, pulmonary embolism, infection requiring surgery, fasciotomy, neurovascular injury, or death) within 90 days. Additionally, 5-year rates of revision ACL reconstruction, contralateral ACL reconstruction, and meniscal surgery were investigated. RESULTS: There were 133,270 ACL reconstructions performed, of which 104,255 were eligible for analysis. Within 90 days, serious complications occurred in 675 (0.65% [95% CI, 0.60-0.70]), including 494 reoperations for infections (0.47% [95% CI, 0.43-0.52]) and 129 for pulmonary embolism (0.12% [95% CI, 0.10-0.15]). Of 54,275 procedures with at least 5 years' follow-up, 1746 (3.22% [95% CI, 3.07-3.37]) underwent revision ACL reconstruction in the same knee, 1553 underwent contralateral ACL reconstruction (2.86% [95% CI, 2.72-3.01]), and 340 underwent meniscal surgery (0.63% [95% CI, 0.56-0.70]). The overall risk of serious complications fell over time (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.96 per year [95% CI, 0.95-0.98]); however, older patients (adjusted OR, 1.11 per 5 years [95% CI, 1.07-1.16]) and patients with a greater modified Charlson Comorbidity Index (adjusted OR, 2.41 per 10 units [95% CI, 1.65-3.51]) were at a higher risk. For every 850 (95% CI, 720-1039) ACL reconstructions, 1 pulmonary embolism could be provoked. For every 213 (95% CI, 195-233), 1 native knee joint infection could be provoked. CONCLUSION: The overall risk of adverse events after ACL reconstruction is low; however, some rare but serious complications, including infections or pulmonary embolism, may occur. Around 3% of patients undergo further ipsilateral or contralateral ACL reconstruction within 5 years. These data will inform shared decision making between clinicians and patients considering their treatment options.