Cemented Patellar Implant Malposition: A Non-Issue for the Painful Total Knee Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Non-optimal patellofemoral relationships may influence treatment decisions during revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA). We performed this study to determine whether patellar implant malposition or patellar tilt is associated with inferior patient-reported outcome scores or patient satisfaction after primary TKA. METHODS: We identified 396 TKA patients (439 knees) from an institutional registry who had undergone patellar resurfacing, with preoperative and 6-week postoperative radiographs available, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) completed at least 1 year after surgery (mean 505 days). Preoperative patient demographic characteristics, patient-reported expectations, National Institutes of Health - Patient Reported Outcomes Measurements Instrument Systems global health, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacement, and University of California Los Angeles activity scores were compared between 60 TKAs performed with non-optimal patellofemoral relationships (36 patellar implant malposition, 24 patellar tilt) and 379 TKAs performed with optimal patellar implant placement. RESULTS: There were no differences between the 2 cohorts regarding demographic features, preoperative radiographic disease severity, expectations, and PROMs; or postoperative tibiofemoral component alignment, PROMs, and patient-reported satisfaction (P = .48). Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacement improved similarly (P = .62) for patients with optimal resurfacing (48.5-77.6 points) and non-optimal resurfacing (47.7-76.6 points). A similar proportion of optimal and suboptimal resurfaced patients reported being satisfied with their TKA (92.7% vs 88.1%, P = .29). CONCLUSION: Although suboptimal patellofemoral relationships may prompt treatment considerations during revision TKA, the data obtained from this study do not suggest that patellar implant malposition or patellar tilt independently contribute to postoperative pain, functional limitation, or dissatisfaction. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: This is a level III, retrospective cohort study.

Patient satisfaction following total knee arthroplasty using restricted kinematic alignment.

AIMS: Alternative alignment concepts, including kinematic and restricted kinematic, have been introduced to help improve clinical outcomes following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical results, along with patient satisfaction, following TKA using the concept of restricted kinematic alignment. METHODS: A total of 121 consecutive TKAs performed between 11 February 2018 to 11 June 2019 with preoperative varus deformity were reviewed at minimum one-year follow-up. Three knees were excluded due to severe preoperative varus deformity greater than 15°, and a further three due to requiring revision surgery, leaving 109 patients and 115 knees to undergo primary TKA using the concept of restricted kinematic alignment with advanced technology. Patients were stratified into three groups based on the preoperative limb varus deformity: Group A with 1° to 5° varus (43 knees); Group B between 6° and 10° varus (56 knees); and Group C with varus greater than 10° (16 knees). This study group was compared with a matched cohort of 115 TKAs and 115 patients using a neutral mechanical alignment target with manual instruments performed from 24 October 2016 to 14 January 2019. RESULTS: Mean overall patient satisfaction for the entire cohort was 4.7 (SE 0.1) on a 5-point Likert scale, with 93% being either very satisfied or satisfied compared with a Likert of 4.3 and patient satisfaction of 81% in the mechanical alignment group (p < 0.001 and p < 0.006 respectively). At mean follow-up of 17 months (11 to 27), the mean overall Likert, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacement, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, Forgotten Joint Score, and Knee Society Knee and Function Scores were significantly better in the kinematic group than in the neutral mechanical alignment group. The most common complication in both groups was contracture requiring manipulation under anaesthesia, involving seven knees (6.1%) in the kinematic group and nine knees (7.8%) in the mechanical alignment group. CONCLUSION: With the advent of advanced technology, and the ability to obtain accurate bone cuts, the target limb alignment, and soft-tissue balance within millimetres, using a restricted kinematic alignment concept demonstrated excellent patient satisfaction following primary TKA. Longer-term analysis is required as to the durability of this method. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(6 Supple A):59-66.