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.

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.

Early results of fixed-bearing unicompartmental knee replacement designed for the lateral compartment.

BACKGROUND: Isolated lateral compartment knee arthritis is less prevalent than medial. While the reported results of medial unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) have been good and comparable to total knee replacement, the results of lateral UKR have been mixed. We present the short-term results and survivorship of a fixed-bearing UKR designed specifically for the lateral compartment. METHODS: We report the result of 130 primary fixed-bearing lateral Oxford (FLO) UKRs (123 patients) performed between 2015 and 2019 with a minimum follow-up of 1 year. The indications for lateral UKR were: isolated lateral osteoarthritis (n = 122), post-trauma (n = 5) and osteonecrosis (n = 3). The mean age was 69.1 (± 11.6), mean BMI 28.4 (± 4.9), 66.9% female, 60% right-sided, and mean follow-up 3 (range 1-4.8 years, standard deviation ± 1) years. The primary outcome measure was the Oxford knee score (OKS). Survival analysis was performed with "revision for any reason", "reoperation", and "implant failure" as the endpoints. RESULTS: Six patients died from unrelated reasons. None of the implants failed. One required the addition of a medial UKR for medial arthritis. There were no other reoperations. At 4 years, the survival for implant failure was 100% and for both revision and all reoperations was 99.5% (95% CI 96.7-99.9%). At the last review, at a mean of 3 years, the mean Oxford knee score was 41. CONCLUSION: The good survivorship and outcome scores suggest that UKR designed for the lateral compartment is an excellent alternative to total knee replacement in selected patients with isolated lateral tibiofemoral arthritis at short-term follow-up.

New instrumentation system for cementless mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty improves surgical performance particularly for trainees.

BACKGROUND: Mobile-bearing medial-unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (mUKA) has a documented learning curve. New instrumentation has been designed with the aim of reducing the technical challenges of this procedure. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the technical performance of mUKA using new (Microplasty) versus older (Phase III) instrumentation, performed by expert surgeons and trainees. Secondary aims were to evaluate functional outcome and mid-term survivorship. METHODS: A time-based comparative cohort study was performed between 2009 and 2015 at a high-volume centre. 273 patients (273 knees, 49.5% female) of mean age 67.8 (standard deviation 10.1) years underwent mUKA. 153 (56.0%) procedures used Microplasty instruments and 120 procedures (44.0%) used Phase III instruments. RESULTS: Non-optimal bearing usage was less frequent with Microplasty than Phase III instruments (24 knees [15.7%] versus 33 knees [27.5%], p = 0.024), with differences due to improved trainee performance. Femoral component sagittal alignment outliers were less frequent with Microplasty, but this was not statistically significant (9 knees [5.9%] versus 13 knees [10.8%], p = 0.18). Post-operative Oxford Knee Scores (OKS) were better with Microplasty (median 42 points [interquartile range 38-44]) compared to Phase III (median 39.5 points [IQR 33-44]), which was statistically significant (p = 0.023), but not clinically meaningful. The overall 5-year Kaplan-Meier (KM) survival estimate was 99.3% (95% CI 97.0-99.8%), with no differences between Microplasty and Phase III instrumentation. CONCLUSIONS: New instrumentation improved the reliability of the proximal tibial resection in trainees. Further research is warranted to investigate whether Microplasty instrumentation shortens the learning curve for medial UKA.

Management of aseptic failure of the mobile-bearing Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) accounts for 9.1% of primary knee arthroplasties (KAs) in the UK. However, wider uptake is limited by higher revision rates compared with total knee arthroplasties (TKA) and concerns over subsequent poor function. The aim of this study was to understand the revision strategies and clinical outcomes for aseptic, failed UKAs at a high-volume centre. METHODS: This was a retrospective, single-centre cohort study of 48 patients (31 female, 17 male) with 52 revision UKAs from 2006 to 2018. Median time to revision was 67 (range 4-180) months. Indications for revision were progression of osteoarthritis (n = 31 knees, 59.6%), unexplained pain (n = 10 knees, 19.2%), aseptic loosening (n = 6 knees, 11.5%), medial collateral ligament incompetence (n = 3 knees, 5.8%) and recurrent bearing dislocation (n = 2 knees, 3.8%). Technical details of surgery, complications and functional outcome were recorded. RESULTS: Failed UKAs were revised to primary TKAs (n = 29 knees, 55.8%), revision TKAs (n = 9 knees, 17.3%), bicompartmental KAs (n = 11 knees, 21.2%), or unicompartmental-to-unicompartmental KAs (n = 3 knees, 5.8%). Median follow up was 81 (range 24-164) months. Four patients (7.7%) died from unrelated causes. No re-revisions were identified. Surgical complications required re-operation in five knees (9.6%). Median Oxford Knee Score at latest follow up was 38 (range 9-48) points and median EQ5D3L index 0.707 (range -0.247 to 1.000). CONCLUSIONS: Aseptic, revision UKA at a high-volume centre had good clinical outcomes. Bicompartmental KA demonstrated excellent function and should be considered an alternative to TKA for progression of osteoarthritis for appropriately trained surgeons.

Debridement, antibiotics and implant retention (DAIR) for the management of knee prosthetic joint infection.

BACKGROUND: While two-stage revision arthroplasty is viewed as the gold standard for the treatment of knee periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in terms of infection eradication, it is associated with significant cost along with patient morbidity and mortality. Debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR) is an attractive option as it has demonstrated better patient outcomes, comparable implant longevity to primary arthroplasty, and significantly reduced cost when successful. Given the heterogeneity of what is defined as a DAIR the literature is highly variable in terms of its efficacy from the perspective of infection eradication. METHODS: In the setting of a previously well-functioning, well-fixed arthroplasty with an acceptable soft tissue envelope and a treatable organism we report our methods for proceeding with a DAIR procedure, both unicompartmental and total knee. RESULTS: With the above methods we have demonstrated improved patient outcomes when compared to one- or two-stage arthroplasty with lower patient morbidity. Implant longevity in the setting of a successful DAIR is equivalent to those of a primary arthroplasty. CONCLUSIONS: With appropriate indications and good surgical technique as described we believe DAIR is an excellent option in the treatment of periprosthetic joint infection. We hope that with a well-defined protocol as outlined we can gain a better understanding of the efficacy of DAIR procedure with more homogeneity to the procedure to better define when they are most successful while improving patient outcomes and reducing cost.

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.

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.

Introduction of an innovative day surgery pathway for unicompartmental knee replacement: no need for early knee flexion.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the introduction of an innovative rehabilitation protocol, delaying knee flexion, for patients receiving unicompartmental knee replacement. DESIGN: Longitudinal cohort. SETTING: Specialist Orthopaedic Unit within an NHS Foundation Trust. PARTICIPANTS: 669 consecutive patients undergoing unicompartmental knee replacement. INTERVENTION: An innovative rehabilitation protocol, delaying knee flexion. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Length of stay, range of movement, Surgical Satisfaction Questionnaire. RESULTS: There were 669 consecutive primary unilateral unicompartmental knee replacements from September 2016 to February 2018. In total 264 patients (39%) went home on the day of surgery, 253 (38%) on day 1 and 152 (23%) stayed in 2 or more days (range 2 to 28 days). The mean length of stay reduced from 2.6 to 1.2days (median 1day). Mean flexion was 110° (range 30 to 140) at 6 weeks. The surgical satisfaction questionnaire showed that 90% of patients discharged on day 0 were very satisfied with the results of surgery. CONCLUSION: Many components of traditional care were altered to introduce this protocol. The most important factors were delayed knee flexion providing benefits in terms of early mobilisation with no short term detriment, physiotherapists working late shifts, a consistent message and patient education. It was safe, effective and patient satisfaction was high.

Patterns of Compartment Involvement in End-stage Knee Osteoarthritis in a Chinese Orthopedic Center: Implications for Implant Choice.

OBJECTIVES: Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is a prevalent disease in the elderly, causing pain and contributing to poor quality of life. Surgical intervention, such as knee arthroplasty, can be used in those with end-stage knee OA. Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is one of the most common surgical procedures for end-stage knee OA, with promising clinical outcomes. However, a large proportion of patients with isolated compartment OA can be treated with unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) instead. UKA has shown better patient-reported functional outcomes, and lower mortality and major complication rates than TKA. The percentage of UKA in knee arthroplasty varied in different orthopedic centers, and we believed that the requirement for UKA was underestimated in many centers. A retrospective study was carried out on our Chinese patient population presenting for knee arthroplasty; it aimed to identify the proportion of patients that might be suitable for UKA. METHODS: A retrospective cross-sectional study of 155 consecutive patients (168 knees) awaiting TKA for end-stage primary OA was performed. The pattern and grade of OA was recorded from preoperative weight-bearing anteroposterior and non-weight-bearing lateral radiographs. The medial, lateral, patellofemoral compartment was given an individual Kellgren-Lawrence grade on the radiographs, and those grade ≥3 were defined as end-stage OA. The compartments involvement was established then. The integrity of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) was determined by the modified Keyes classification on lateral radiographs. The applicability for total or partial knee arthroplasty was determined according to the compartments involvement. RESULTS: Medial compartment involvement was found in 154 (91.7%) knees, while the involvement of the lateral compartment and patellofemoral joint was found in 54 (32.1%) and 57 (33.9%) knees, respectively. Eighty-one (48.2%) of the knees showed medial compartment OA with or without patellofemoral joint involvement, and modified Keyes classification grade 1, indicating an intact ACL, and, hence, potential suitability for medial UKA. Isolated lateral OA indicating possible suitability for lateral UKA was identified in 11 knees (6.5%). No patients showed isolated patellofemoral joint OA. The other 76 (45.2%) knees could be treated by TKA. CONCLUSIONS: The medial compartment was the most commonly affected in our Chinese patients indicated for knee arthroplasty. More than half of the patients in this group could be treated by either medial or lateral UKA.

The failing medial compartment in the varus knee and its association with CAM deformity of the hip.

BACKGROUND: Since 2011, the knee service at the Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre has been offering a neutralising medial opening wedge high tibial osteotomy (HTO) to a specific group of patients with genu varum and early knee osteoarthritis. An observation was made concerning this group of patients and the presence of CAM deformity at the hip. The aim of this study is to establish whether or not any association exists between the OA phenotype shared by our HTO group and the incidence of CAM deformity at the hip. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was designed to estimate the prevalence of CAM-type lesions across different groups of individuals. Our HTO group (n=30) was compared to a pre-arthroplasty group (n=20) and control group (n=20). A total of 70 subjects were identified across the different groups all of whom had long-leg radiographs (LLRs) available for analysis. LLRs were analysed using an in house developed Matlab®-based (Matlab R2009b; MathWorks) software package for hip measurements and MediCAD® (Hectec GmbH, Germany) for lower limb alignment measurements. RESULTS: The HTO group had a significantly higher prevalence of CAM lesions (57%) than both the pre-arthroplasty (40%) and control (30%) groups. This difference was maintained when results were adjusted for potential confounding factors (age, gender and laterality). Across the groups, individuals with tibia vara were more likely to have CAM-deformity of the hip (p=0.021). CONCLUSION: Patients with symptomatic early knee OA and varus deformity of the knee have a high prevalence of CAM deformity in the hip.

Variations In Good Patient Reported Outcomes After Total Knee Arthroplasty.

This study identifies optimal OKS values that discriminate post-operative (TKA) patient satisfaction and determines the variation in threshold values by patient characteristics and expectations. It is the first to identify patient improvement using measures (PoPC) that account for patient's pre-operative symptom severity. Of 365 primary TKA patients from a London district general hospital 84% were satisfied at 12 and 24 months. Whilst the overall OKS thresholds (follow-up, change, PoPC) were stable at 12 months (31, 11, 39.7%) and 24 months (35, 12, 38.9%), patients who were older (≥75years), were underweight/normal (BMI<25), had pre-operative symptom severity (OKS≤15) and expected no pain post-surgery, required a greater (potential) improvement to be classed as satisfied. When reporting good patient outcomes, cohorts should be stratified accordingly.