Postponement of total knee arthroplasties due to pandemic causes significant deterioration on patients' preoperative knee and quality of life scores.

Introduction: Elective surgeries were postponed during the COVID-19 pandemic to alleviate healthcare strains, affecting majority of elective orthopaedic surgeries such as total knee arthroplasties (TKAs). The aim of this study is to evaluate the impact on knee function and quality of life of patients who had their planned TKA postponed due to the pandemic. Methods: This is a retrospective analysis of data collected in a tertiary hospital. Patients included were diagnosed with primary knee osteoarthritis and they were initially scheduled for primary TKA between January to April 2020 but surgery was postponed by at least 6 months from the initial operative date. 160 patients were included in this study (53 males and 107 females, mean age 68.0 ± 8.1). Patients were assessed prior to initial surgery date and assessed again, prior to the postponed surgery date. Clinical scores included Knee Society Function Score (KSFS), Knee Society Knee Score (KSKS), Oxford Knee scores (OKS) and Short-Form 36 Physical and Mental Component Scores. (SF36 PCS and MCS). Paired T-test was performed for parametric data whereas Wilcoxon signed-rank analysis was performed for non-parametric data. Results: Comparing initial preoperative versus postponement preoperative scores, the cohort had significantly poorer KSKS (38.4 ± 15.4 and 36.5 ± 15.4, p = 0.034), SF36 PCS (34.3 ± 9.2 and 32.7 ± 8.6, p = 0.02) and OKS (34.9 ± 0.77 and 35.8 ± 8.6, p = 0.02) scores respectively. Conclusion: The postponement of elective TKAs has resulted in a significant deterioration of knee scores and physical quality of live scores of patients in a short span of 6 months. Further studies can evaluate if there are repercussions on long term TKAs outcomes. Level of evidence: Retrospective study, Level III.

Novel morphogenic knee implant delivers comparable mid-term outcomes as compared to conventional non-morphogenic implants.

INTRODUCTION: Conventional total knee arthroplasty (C-TKA) implants have well-established mid- and long-term outcomes. The novel TKA (N-TKA) implants provide morphogenic implant components with smaller size increments to facilitate anatomical replication. The aim of the study is to evaluate if these advantages provides better clinical outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Registry data prospectively collected within a single institution from 2014 to 2018 was reviewed and propensity score matching was performed to match C-TKA to N-TKA. 70 pairs of cruciate retaining (CR) TKA and 116 pairs of posterior stabilized (PS) TKA were identified. Range of motion, SF-36, Knee Society Knee Score (KSKS), Knee Society Function Score (KSFS) and Oxford Knee Score (OKS) were assessed preoperatively, 6 and 24 months postoperatively. Satisfaction was assessed 6 and 24 months postoperatively. Independent T test was performed for parametric data, whereas Wilcoxon rank-sum analysis was performed for non-parametric data. RESULTS: Both C-TKA and N-TKA cohorts demonstrated statistically significant improvement for KSKS, KSFS, OKS and SF-36 at 6 and 24 months postoperatively. C-TKA CR patients had better flexion at 6 months as compared to N-TKA CR (108.7° versus 98.3°, respectively, p = 0.046). At 24 months, there was no difference between C-TKA and N-TKA for range of motion, KSKS, KSFS, OKS and SF-36 PCS, regardless of insert type (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Both models showed great postoperative improvements in KSFS, KSKS, OKS and SF-36 and have comparable early and mid-term outcomes, suggesting that N-TKAs are suitable substitutes for C-TKA. Longer follow-up studies are required to evaluate the long-term outcomes of N-TKAs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: lll.

Single-Level Endoscopic TLIF Has Decreased Surgery Duration, Blood Loss, and Length of Hospital Stay While Achieving Similar 1-Year Clinical and Radiological Outcomes Compared With Conventional Minimally Invasive TLIF.

BACKGROUND: This study presents a single surgeon's experience comparing 1-year outcomes of endoscopic transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (E-TLIF) vs minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) in an Asian population. METHODS: Retrospective review of consecutive patients who underwent single-level E-TLIF or MIS-TLIF by a single surgeon in a tertiary spine institution from 2018 to 2021 with 1-year follow-up. Inclusion criteria for both procedures were degenerative disc disease with grade I or II spondylolisthesis and mild to moderate central canal stenosis. Clinical outcomes assessed included surgery duration, blood loss, and length of stay. Patient-reported outcomes assessed included the visual analog score for back pain and lower limb pain, Oswestry Disability Index, and North American Spine Society Neurogenic Symptom Score. Radiographic parameters assessed included segmental lordosis, posterior disc height, listhesis, and the presence of cage migration or subsidence. RESULTS: Twelve E-TLIF and 34 MIS-TLIF patients were identified. E-TLIF had shorter surgery duration (165 ± 15 vs 259 ± 43 min for E-TLIF and MIS-TLIF groups, respectively; P < 0.001), reduced blood loss (83 ± 75 vs 181 ± 225 mL; P = 0.033), and decreased length of stay (1.8 ± 0.9 vs 4.7 ± 2.9 days; P < 0.001) compared with MIS-TLIF. E-TLIF and MIS-TLIF patients had significant improvements (P < 0.05) at 1 year in all patient-reported outcomes scores and radiographic parameters assessed. Both E-TLIF and MIS-TLIF patient groups also had similar postoperative patient-reported outcomes scores and radiographic parameters. No complications were recorded for E-TLIF, while MIS-TLIF had a case of dura tear and another case of meralgia paresthetica. There were no instances of cage subsidence, cage migration, or implant loosening in either group at 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: Although the study size was limited because E-TLIF is a relatively new technique in our institution, 1-year results demonstrate that E-TLIF can be a safe and efficacious option that achieves clinical and radiological results similar to MIS-TLIF with the additional benefits of decreased surgical duration, blood loss, and length of hospital stay. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The results of this study support the effectiveness and potential advantages of endoscopic TLIF compared with MIS-TLIF.