SummaryBackgroundTotal joint replacements for end-stage osteoarthritis of the hip and knee are cost-effective and demonstrate significant clinical improvement. However, robust population based lifetime-risk data for implant revision are not available to aid patient decision making, which is a particular problem in young patient groups deciding on best-timing for surgery.MethodsWe did implant survival analysis on all patients within the Clinical Practice Research Datalink who had undergone total hip replacement or total knee replacement. These data were adjusted for all-cause mortality with data from the Office for National Statistics and used to generate lifetime risks of revision surgery based on increasing age at the time of primary surgery.FindingsWe identified 63 158 patients who had undergone total hip replacement and 54 276 who had total knee replacement between Jan 1, 1991, and Aug 10, 2011, and followed up these patients to a maximum of 20 years. For total hip replacement, 10-year implant survival rate was 95·6% (95% CI 95·3–95·9) and 20-year rate was 85·0% (83·2–86·6). For total knee replacement, 10-year implant survival rate was 96·1% (95·8–96·4), and 20-year implant survival rate was 89·7% (87·5–91·5). The lifetime risk of requiring revision surgery in patients who had total hip replacement or total knee replacement over the age of 70 years was about 5% with no difference between sexes. For those who had surgery younger than 70 years, however, the lifetime risk of revision increased for younger patients, up to 35% (95% CI 30·9–39·1) for men in their early 50s, with large differences seen between male and female patients (15% lower for women in same age group). The median time to revision for patients who had surgery younger than age 60 was 4·4 years.InterpretationOur study used novel methodology to investigate and offer new insight into the importance of young age and risk of revision after total hip or knee replacement. Our evidence challenges the increasing trend for more total hip replacements and total knee replacements to be done in the younger patient group, and these data should be offered to patients as part of the shared decision making process.FundingOxford Musculoskeletal Biomedical Research Unit, National Institute for Health Research.

ObjectiveTo assess the benefit of arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) in adults with a meniscal tear and knee pain in three defined populations (taking account of the comparison intervention): (A) all patients (any type of meniscal tear with or without radiographic osteoarthritis); (B) patients with any type of meniscal tear in a non-osteoarthritic knee; and (C) patients with an unstable meniscal tear in a non-osteoarthritic knee.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.DatasourcesA search of MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Scopus, Web of Science, Clinicaltrials.gov and ISRCTN was performed, unlimited by language or publication date (inception to 18 October 2018).EligibilitycriteriaRandomised controlled trials performed in adults with meniscal tears, comparing APM versus (1) non-surgical intervention; (2) pharmacological intervention; (3) surgical intervention; and (4) no intervention.ResultsTen trials were identified: seven compared with non-surgery, one pharmacological and two surgical. Findings were limited by small sample size, small number of trials and cross-over of participants to APM from comparator interventions. In group A (all patients) receiving APM versus non-surgical intervention (physiotherapy), at 6–12 months, there was a small mean improvement in knee pain (standardised mean difference [SMD] 0.22 [95% CI 0.03 to 0.40]; five trials, 943 patients; I2 48%; Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation [GRADE]: low), knee-specific quality of life (SMD 0.43 [95% CI 0.10 to 0.75]; three trials, 350 patients; I2 56%; GRADE: low) and knee function (SMD 0.18 [95% CI 0.04 to 0.33]; six trials, 1050 patients; I2 27%; GRADE: low). When the analysis was restricted to people without osteoarthritis (group B), there was a small to moderate improvement in knee pain (SMD 0.35 [95% CI 0.04 to 0.66]; three trials, 402 patients; I2 58%; GRADE: very low), knee-specific quality of life (SMD 0.59 [95% CI 0.11 to 1.07]; two trials, 244 patients; I2 71%; GRADE: low) and knee function (SMD 0.30 [95% CI 0.06 to 0.53]; four trials, 507 patients; I2 44%; GRADE: very low). There was no improvement in knee pain, function or quality of life in patients receiving APM compared with placebo surgery at 6–12 months in group A or B (pain: SMD 0.08 [95% CI −0.24 to 0.41]; one trial, 146 patients; GRADE: low; function: SMD −0.08 [95% CI −0.41 to 0.24]; one trial, 146 patients; GRADE: high; quality of life: SMD 0.05 [95% CI −0.27 to 0.38]; one trial; 146 patients; GRADE: high). No trials were identified for people in group C.ConclusionPerforming APM in all patients with knee pain and a meniscal tear is not appropriate, and surgical treatment should not be considered the first-line intervention. There may, however, be a small-to-moderate benefit from APM compared with physiotherapy for patients without osteoarthritis. No trial has been limited to patients failing non-operative treatment or patients with an unstable meniscal tear in a non-arthritic joint; research is needed to establish the value of APM in this population.Protocol registration numberPROSPERO CRD42017056844.

Background: The patellar tendon is often considered the “gold standard” graft for reducing the risk of graft rupture after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. However, its use may also be associated with an increased risk of injury to the contralateral ACL. Purpose: To clarify the association between graft choice and the risk of revision and contralateral ACL reconstruction. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: Prospective data captured by the New Zealand ACL Registry between April 2014 and December 2018 were reviewed. All primary ACL reconstructions performed using either a hamstring tendon or patellar tendon autograft were included. Cox regression survival analysis adjusting for patient factors was performed to compare the risk of revision and contralateral ACL reconstruction between the hamstring tendon graft and the patellar tendon graft. Results: A total of 7155 primary ACL reconstructions were reviewed, of which 5563 (77.7%) were performed using a hamstring tendon graft and 1592 (22.3%) were performed using a patellar tendon graft. Patients with a hamstring tendon graft had a revision rate of 2.7% compared with 1.3% in patients with a patellar tendon graft (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 2.51; 95% CI, 1.55-4.06; P < .001). The patellar tendon graft was associated with an increased risk of contralateral ACL reconstruction compared with the hamstring tendon graft (adjusted HR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.15-3.16; P = .012). The number needed to treat (NNT) with a patellar tendon graft to prevent 1 revision was 73.6. However, the NNT with a hamstring tendon graft to prevent 1 contralateral reconstruction was 116.3. Conclusion: Use of a patellar tendon graft reduced the risk of graft rupture but was associated with an increased risk of injury to the contralateral ACL. Adequate rehabilitation and informed decision making on return to activity and injury prevention measures may be important in preventing subsequent injury to the healthy knee.