Trends in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty among 138 international experienced arthroplasty knee surgeons.

Purpose: Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is an established option for treating isolated unicompartmental knee osteoarthritis (OA), but controversies still exist about patient selection, indications, perioperative management and alignment goals. This survey was designed to understand the current trends of experienced arthroplasty knee surgeons performing UKA. Methods: An online questionnaire was created with SurveyMonkey® to assess global tendencies in the utilization of UKA. A link to the survey was shared with all ESSKA (European Society for Sports Traumatology, Knee Surgery and Arthroscopy) members. The questionnaire consisted of free and multiple-choice questions and was divided into four sections: demographic information, the surgical activity of the respondents, indications for surgery and postoperative alignment goals. Results: A total of 138 ESSKA members from 34 different countries completed the survey. A total of 81 % of the responders performed fewer than 50 UKAs per year; 53 % of UKAs represented less than 20 % of their knee replacements; 71 % used mainly or only fixed-bearing implants; 81 % performed UKA in a shorter time compared to TKA; and 61 % and 72 % were interested in custom-made UKA and robotics, respectively. Thirty-six percent considered a minimum postoperative alignment of 0° for medial UKA, and 32 % considered 10° as the maximum valgus deformity for lateral UKA. Fifty-five percent had no minimum age cut-off, 47 % had no BMI cut-off, and 57 % believed TKA was better than UKA in knees with concomitant high-grade patellofemoral OA. Approximately 50 % of the surgeons desired a coronal alignment that was the same as the predegeneration alignment. Conclusion: A high level of agreement was reached regarding the following: preference for fixed-bearing UKAs, lower surgical time for UKA compared to TKA, interest in custom-made and robotic UKAs, no age and weight cut-off, TKA preferred in the presence of patellofemoral OA, and a final alignment goal of the predegenerative state both for medial and lateral. There was no agreement regarding length of stay, rehabilitation protocol, preoperative varus and valgus cut-off values, and treatment in cases of absence of anterior cruciate ligament or previous osteotomy.

Obesity increases the risk of conversion to total knee arthroplasty after unicompartimental knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: The aim of this meta-analysis was to to determine the influence of obesity on patient outcome and implant survivorship after primary unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA). METHODS: A PRISMA systematic review was conducted by searching the Medline (PubMed), EMBASE, and Cochrane electronic databases to identify clinical studies investigating the effect of obesity on outcomes after UKA. Data were collected on aspecifically designed extraction form. Methodological quality was assessed using the Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies score. Quantitative meta-analysis was carried out using RevMan 5.4 software. RESULTS: A total of 17 studies were included; 43,845 primary UKA patients were classified by their BMI: on-obese (BMI 25 to < 30 kg/m2); obese (BMI 30 to < 35 kg/m2); severely obese (BMI > 35 kg/m2). Pooled analysis showed no statistically significant difference in Knee Society Score (KSS) pain in the obese (n.s.) and the severely obese (n.s.) group compared to the non-obese group, while the KSS function score was lower in the severely obese (P = 0.0002) compared to the obese (P = 0.06) and the non-obese group. Postoperative Oxford Knee Score (OKS) was lower in the obese group (P = 0.01) but not in the severely obese group (P = 0.16). Postoperative Range of Motion (ROM) was comparable in the obese and non-obese group (P = 0.16). Implant survival at 10 years follow-up was significantly lower in the obese (82.5-95.3%; P < 0.0001) and the severely obese group (87.5-93.8%; P < 0.0001) thanthe non-obese group (83.6-98.6%). CONCLUSION: Obesity and severe obesity were associated with significantly higher revision and lower implant survival rates. Obesity did not influence clinical and most functional outcomes after UKA, whereas KSS function score was significantly lower only for the severely obese patient group. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III, meta-analysis.

Preparation for the next COVID-19 wave: The European Hip Society and European Knee Associates recommendations.

PURPOSE: To plan for the continuance of elective hip and knee arthroplasty during a resurgence or new wave of COVID-19 infections. METHOD: A systematic review was conducted using the terms "COVID-19" or "SARS-Cov-2" and "second wave". No relevant citations were found to inform on recommendations the plan. Therefore, an expert panel of the European Hip Society and the European Knee Associates was formed to provide the recommendations. RESULTS: Overall, the recommendations consider three phases; review of the first wave, preparation for the next wave, and during the next wave. International and national policies will drive most of the management. The recommendations focus on the preparation phase and, in particular, the actions that the individual surgeon needs to undertake to continue with, and practice, elective arthroplasty during the next wave, as well as planning their personal and their family's lives. The recommendations expect rigorous data collection during the next wave, so that a cycle of continuous improvement is created to take account of any future waves. CONCLUSIONS: The recommendations for planning to continue elective hip and knee arthroplasty during a new phase of the SARS-Cov-2 pandemic provide a framework to reduce the risk of a complete shutdown of elective surgery. This involves engaging with hospital managers and other specialities in the planning process. Individuals have responsibilities to themselves, their colleagues, and their families, beyond the actual delivery of elective arthroplasty.