Age stratified, matched comparison of unicompartmental and total knee replacement.

Journal and index pages often block iframe embedding. This reader keeps the evidence details in Orthonotes and leaves the source page one click away.

Abstract

[Indexed for MEDLINE] Conflict of interest statement: Declaration of competing interest The author or one or more of the authors have received or will receive benefits for personal or professional use from a commercial party related directly or indirectly to the subject of this article. The funding source played no role in the design, conduct or interpretation of this study. 8. ANZ J Surg. 2024 Sep;94(9):1502-1506. doi: 10.1111/ans.19035. Epub 2024 May 13. Accuracy and completeness of registry-reported unicompartmental knee arthroplasty revision. Chen W(1), Tay ML(1)(2), Bolam S(2)(3), Monk AP(3)(4), Young SW(1)(2). Author information: (1)Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, North Shore Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand. (2)Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences (FMHS), University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand. (3)Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Auckland City Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand. (4)Auckland Bioengineering Institute, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand. Comment in ANZ J Surg. 2024 Sep;94(9):1437-1438. doi: 10.1111/ans.19205. INTRODUCTION: The key outcome of joint registries is revision events, which inform clinical practice and identify poor-performing implants. Registries record revision events and reasons, but accuracy may be limited by a lack of standardized definitions of revision. Our study aims to assess the accuracy and completeness of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) revision and indications reported to the New Zealand Joint Registry (NZJR) with independent clinical review. METHODS: Case record review of 2272 patients undergoing primary UKA at four large tertiary hospitals between 2000 and 2017 was performed, identifying 158 patients who underwent revision. Detailed review of clinical findings, radiographs and operative data was performed to identify revision cases and the reasons for revision using a standardized protocol. These were compared to NZJR data using chi-squared and Fisher exact tests. RESULTS: The NZJR recorded 150 (95%) of all UKA revisions. Osteoarthritis progression was the most common reason on the systematic clinical review (35%), however, this was underreported to the registry (8%, P