Indications for medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) have expanded over the past two decades. Proposed advantages include faster recovery, improved kinematics, and better functional outcomes compared with total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in age-matched control subjects. A focused preoperative examination and imaging is essential to identify appropriate surgical candidates. No difference has been demonstrated between fixed- and mobile-bearing implants for implant survivorship or patient-reported outcomes. The most common reasons for conversion to a TKA are aseptic loosening and progression of osteoarthritis. Ten-year survival for UKA in cohort studies has shown to be >90% with outcomes after conversion to TKA being similar to outcomes for revision TKA. Registries have consistently shown lower implant survival for UKA compared with that for TKA, which is likely secondary to use of several different implants by surgeons of varying levels of experience. UKA has the potential to be a cost-effective alternative to TKA in certain patient populations when performed at high-volume centers with advanced surgical techniques.

Cannabis has gained widespread public advocacy since its legalization in several states with recent evidence suggesting that its self-reported use has increased in patients undergoing a primary total joint arthroplasty. The endocannabinoid system has been proposed to play a role in decreasing the inflammatory cascade and enhancing pain management. For these reasons, interest has emerged in the orthopaedic community as a potential treatment or adjunct to treatment in many musculoskeletal conditions. However, the evidence to date is scant and precludes recommendations for its widespread use. Given the current paucity of evidence in the orthopaedic cohort, future research is warranted in this area to determine the efficacy and safety before endorsements can be made by orthopaedic surgeons.

No abstract

No abstract

Aims Pelvic incidence (PI) is a position-independent spinopelvic parameter traditionally used by spinal surgeons to determine spinal alignment. Its relevance to the arthroplasty surgeon in assessing patient risk for total hip arthroplasty (THA) instability preoperatively is unclear. This study was undertaken to investigate the significance of PI relative to other spinopelvic parameter risk factors for instability to help guide its clinical application. Methods Retrospective analysis was performed of a multicentre THA database of 9,414 patients with preoperative imaging (dynamic spinopelvic radiographs and pelvic CT scans). Several spinopelvic parameter measurements were made by engineers using advanced software including sacral slope (SS), standing anterior pelvic plane tilt (APPT), spinopelvic tilt (SPT), lumbar lordosis (LL), and PI. Lumbar flexion (LF) was determined by change in LL between standing and flexed-seated lateral radiographs. Abnormal pelvic mobility was defined as ∆SPT ≥ 20° between standing and flexed-forward positions. Sagittal spinal deformity (SSD) was defined as PI-LL mismatch > 10°. Results PI showed a positive correlation with parameters of SS, SPT, and LL (r-value range 0.468 to 0.661). Patients with a higher PI value showed higher degrees of standing LL, likely as a compensatory measure to maintain sagittal spine balance. There was a positive correlation between LL and LF such that patients with less standing LL had decreased LF ( r = 0.49). Similarly, there was a positive correlation between increased SSD and decreased LF ( r = 0.54). PI in isolation did not show any significant correlation with lumbar ( r = 0.04) or pelvic mobility ( r = 0.02). The majority of patients (range 89.4% to 94.2%) had normal lumbar and pelvic mobility regardless of the PI value. Conclusion The PI value alone is not indicative of either spinal or pelvic mobility, and thus in isolation may not be a risk factor for THA instability. Patients with SSD had higher rates of spinopelvic stiffness, which may be the mechanism by which PI relates to THA instability risk, but further clinical studies are required. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(3):352–358.