The purpose of this study was to compare the range of motion after standard version posterior stabilised TKR and high-flexion version TKR in patients receiving bilateral total knee replacement. Thirty-five patients were recruited. The range of motion of the knees was measured clinically with a goniometer in both the pre-operative period and the most recent follow-up. It was found that the preoperative range of motion was comparable in the two groups. The average post-operative flexion was 105°±13°in the standard version group and 106°±14°in the high-flexion design group (p=0.201, paired t-test; beta error=0.073). A slight loss in flexion was observed in the standard version group (0.5°) as opposed to a slight gain in the high-flexion design group (2°). However, this was not statistically significant (p=0.251, paired t-test; beta error=0.105).Résumé Le but de cette étude est de comparer la mobilité du genou après prothèse totale postéro stabilisée et prothèse total type « high-flexion », tous les patients étant opérés des deux genoux dans le même temps opératoire. 35 patients ont été inclus, la mobilité des genoux a été mesurée cliniquement en pré-opératoire et au plus grand recul. La mobilité pré-opératoire a été comparable dans les deux groupes, la mobilité post opératoire a été de 105°±13°dans la prothèse standard contre 106°±14°dans les prothèses dites « high-flexion » (p=0.201). Une petite perte de flexion est observée dans le groupe standard (0.5°), le gain dans le groupe des prothèses dites « high-flexion » est modéré (2°). Il n'y a pas de différences significatives entre ces deux groupes (p=0.251).

Purpose: Total knee replacement (TKR) is associated with post-operative pain. Femoral nerve block can relieve the pain but also affects the post-operative mobility. Saphenous nerve block (SNB) can improve analgesia without interfering mobilisation. However, there is no consensus on the ideal mode of administration of SNB. We aim to compare the effects of single shot versus continuous SNB on patients undergoing TKR. Methods: Patients were randomised into two groups: single shot and continuous SNB groups. Post-operative rehabilitation and mobilisation were assessed by blinded physiotherapists, and preoperative and post-operative American knee scores were recorded by blinded specialised nurse. Post-operative analgesics usage was recorded by blinded pain nurses and anaesthetists. Results: Sixty-four patients were recruited; 6 patients withdrew with 29 patients in each group. There is no significant difference in early mobilisation and rehabilitation comparing both groups. The mean of the range gained on day 2 when compared to day 1 in single-shot SNB group was 17.41 ± 19.67° versus continuous SNB group was 23.45 ± 19.18° ( p = 0.149). The mean of the range gained on day 3 when compared to day 1 in single-shot group was 27.24 ± 22.66° versus continuous SNB group was 29.31 ± 21.57° ( p = 0.6). The mean of maximum flexion achieved by day 3 in single-shot SNB group was 92.41 ± 9.6° versus continuous SNB was 91.90 ± 7.95° ( p = 0.84). The day of reaching maximum flexion and the goal of 40 m showed no significant difference. Length of stay (LOS), difference in post-operative American Knee Society knee score at 3 months and analgesics usage showed no significant difference. Conclusion: There is no significant difference in comparing the effect on mobilisation, LOS, early clinical outcome, analgesics usage in the single-shot group and the continuous SNB group.

Purpose.To compare the outcome of fixed-bearing posterior-stabilised versus cruciate-substituting prostheses in 46 patients who underwent primary bilateral total knee replacement (TKR). Methods. Records of 35 women and 11 men aged 54 to 78 (mean, 67) years who underwent primary bilateral TKR for osteoarthritis (n=44) and rheumatoid arthritis (n=2) were retrospectively reviewed. A fixed-bearing posterior-stabilised prosthesis (Zimmer NexGen Legacy flex [LPS-Flex]) was used in one knee, and a fixed-bearing cruciate-substituting prosthesis (Depuy Press Fit Condylar Sigma CS [PFC CS]) was used in the contralateral knee. The mean time interval between the 2 operations was 34 (range, 4-60) months. All operations were performed by the same group of surgeons using standardised techniques. The medial parapatellar approach was used, and the patella was resurfaced. Rehabilitation was also standardised. Outcome measures included the pre-and post-operative active range of movement Patellar clunk syndrome in fixed-bearing posterior-stabilised versus cruciate-substituting prostheses

Introduction: Partial knee replacement (PKR) is one of the treatment options in middle-aged patients with less extensive knee osteoarthritis, with unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) most commonly done for medial osteoarthritis. There are numerous advantages like bone/ligament preserving and faster recovery. However, the indications of UKR remain controversial, as most patients have some patellofemoral joint (PFJ) osteoarthritis. We performed modular bicruciate-retaining bicompartmental knee replacement (BKR) in this group of patients and compared the outcome with total knee replacement (TKR). Materials and Methods: From 2016 to 2017, 14 BKR were performed in patients with medial and PFJ osteoarthritis. They were retrospectively compared with 14 TKR performed in patients with similar age and severity. The incision length, operative time, blood loss (in terms of hemoglobin drop), and length of stay were recorded. Pre- and postoperative range of motion and Knee Society knee score at 1-year follow-up were compared. Results: The mean incision length for BKR was shorter than TKR (130.1 vs. 185.1 mm), but the mean operative time was also longer (152.6 vs. 88.1 min). There was also less mean hemoglobin drop (1.8 vs. 2.6 g/dL) and shorter length of stay (7.4 vs. 9.2 days). The mean postoperative function score is better in BKR group (90.4 vs. 77.5), and the mean postoperative knee score (87.2 vs 88.9) and flexion (115.7° vs. 111.4°) were similar for both groups. Discussion: In selected patients, BKR is a good alternative to TKR. It preserves advantages of UKR while also tackle the PFJ which is the most controversial aspect of UKR. The early clinical outcome in our study is promising. However, there is a learning curve. Longer follow-up is necessary to study on the performance and survivorship as compared with UKR and TKR.

Introduction: There are a lot of debates on the advantages and safety profile of one stage bilateral knee arthroplasty. Most of the studies focus on total knee replacement, and it may not be applied directly to unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR). We would like to compare the early results of one and two stage bilateral UKR in our center. Methods: This is a retrospective review of all the bilateral medial UKR done in our center in 2018–2019. Patients’ demographic data, operative time, postoperative blood, length of stay (LOS) and complications were recorded. The number of admissions, pre-operative assessment sessions (PAS), and weeks of post-operative physiotherapy were analyzed. Clinical outcome was measured by Knee society knee score and range of motion (ROM). Results: Our center performed 97 UKR in 2018–2019, with 50 UKR performed in 25 patients, among which 16 received one stage while 9 received two stage bilateral UKR. Both groups had similar mean age, BMI, sex ratio, ASA grading, pre-operative knee score and ROM. Patient in the one stage group required only 1 PAS/admission/operation to treat both knees with a mean LOS of 7.3 days and 7.8 weeks of physiotherapy, while those in the two stage group required 2 PAS/admissions/operations with a mean cumulative LOS of 9.8 days and 14.1 weeks of physiotherapy. The mean cumulative operative time was similar for both groups but the one stage group only required 1 operative session. There was no difference in blood loss and there was no transfusion or complication. The post-operative knee score and ROM at 3 and 6 months were similar for both groups. Conclusion: In suitable patients with bilateral medial OA knee, one stage bilateral UKR offers simliar early clinical outcome with shorter rehabilitation duration but without increasing complications compared with two stage. Resources can therefore be better utilized.