Pain after total knee arthroplasty is a prevalent condition. This study compared the effectiveness of tapentadol extended-release (ER) 50 mg × 2, oxycodone controlled-release (CR) 10 mg × 2, and placebo, as added to a multimodal analgesic regime both in-hospital and at home the first week after total knee arthroplasty. The study was randomized and blinded for investigators, staff, outcome assessors, and patients. Follow-up included pain intensity on mobilization, pain at rest, worst pain in the previous 24 hours, and adverse effects measured on 0 to 10 numerical rating scales. A total of 134 patients in 3 study groups received their allocated intervention and were included in the analysis. The primary outcome pain on mobilization the 7 first postoperative days reported as area under the curve was 528.1 (SD 267.5, interquartile range (IQR) 356.6-665.4) for placebo, 427.2 (SD 203.9, IQR 303.6-544.3) for tapentadol ER, and 507.9 (SD 243.7, IQR 292.4-686.8) for oxycodone CR (P = 0.12). With the exception of constipation being less prevalent in the tapentadol ER group (P = 0.02), we found no significant differences between treatment groups for the secondary outcomes. Tapentadol ER as an add-on to multimodal analgesia did not significantly improve pain relief when compared to oxycodone CR or placebo. Constipation was lowest in the tapentadol ER group.

Purpose In recent years, the preferred fixation method for unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) has changed from cemented to cementless. The aim of this study was to compare patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) from the cemented versus cementless techniques two- and twelve-months post-operation. Methods From 2015 to 2019, 187 cemented and 261 cementless UKAs were included based on an institutional registry. The Oxford Unicompartmental Knee System™ (Zimmer Biomet, Bridgend, United Kingdom) was used for all patients. Three experienced surgeons performed all procedures. Data were collected pre- and peroperatively, and at two- and twelve-months postoperatively. PROMs included pain (evaluated on a numeric rating scale [NRS] during activity and at rest), and knee function (evaluated with the disease-specific short form of the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score [KOOS-PS]). Patients also rated postoperative joint function (better, unchanged, uncertain or worse) and were asked, “based on your experience to date, would you go through the surgery again?”. Duration of surgery was noted and revisions during the first post-operative year were evaluated. Results The cemented group reported significantly lower activity-related pain at both two- and twelve-month follow-up. This was also the case for pain at rest at twelve-month follow-up, and KOOS-PS at two-month follow-up. Duration of surgery (adjusted for surgeon differences) was eight minutes less on average with the cementless technique. Eleven prosthetic joint infections (PJIs) were found following the cementless fixation technique compared to three using the cemented implant. Conclusion UKA cases with cemented implants had lower pain scores during activity two and twelve months after surgery compared with those who had cementless implants. Differences in favor of the cemented group were also found for pain at rest one year after surgery and for KOOS-PS two months after. Surgery was significantly shorter in duration in the cementless group, but a relatively high number of PJIs were found in that same group. Level of evidence Level II.

No abstract

Background and purpose: Outcomes following revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) may depend on the indication for revision surgery. We compared pain, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and patient satisfaction among different indications for an aseptic TKA revision.Patients and methods: This was a retrospective study of prospective data from an institutional registry of 178 primary TKAs revised between 2012 and 2020. Patients were grouped by the main reason for their revision: loosening, malposition, instability, or stiffness. Pain during mobilization and at rest (NRS 0–10), physical function (KOOS-PS and KSS), and quality of life (EQ-5D) were surveyed preoperatively and at 2 months and 1 year postoperatively. Patient satisfaction was evaluated through questions related to knee function and their willingness to undergo the same surgery again at 1-year follow-up.Results: Pain and PROMs improved in all groups and did not differ statistically significantly between the 4 groups at 1-year follow-up, but equivalence for pain was not confirmed between groups. Overall, pain during mobilization improved by 2.4 (95% CI 1.9–3.0) at 1-year follow-up, which was both clinically and statistically significant. Improvements were seen within 2 months of surgery, with no further improvements seen 1 year postoperatively. Approximately 2/3 of patients reported that their knee function had improved and would undergo the same surgery again, at 1-year follow-up.Conclusion: Statistically significant and clinically relevant improvements in pain and PROMs were seen in all 4 revision groups 1 year after revision TKA. These results may assist clinicians and patients during preoperative counselling.

Postoperative patient satisfaction is related to preoperative expectations. Information regarding expected results following surgery is therefore important. This study evaluated patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and patient satisfaction up to 1 year after primary and aseptic revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The study included 2151 primary and 235 aseptic revision TKA surgeries conducted between 2010 and 2018. Pain, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score–Physical Function–Short Form and European Quality of Life–5 Dimension surveys were recorded preoperatively and at 8 weeks and 1 year. To determine satisfaction, patients were asked to rate their knee function compared with that before surgery and to answer whether they would undergo the surgery again given their current knowledge. Patients who had primary TKA improved in all PROMs in each follow-up up to 1 year, whereas patients who had revision TKA showed improvement at 8 weeks with no further improvement at 1 year. In terms of patient satisfaction, 88% of patients in the primary TKA group reported better knee function, and 87% were willing to have the surgery again at 1 year; the proportions were lower for patients who underwent revision TKA (66% and 68%, respectively). Aseptic revision TKA demonstrates inferior PROMs compared with those of primary TKA 1 year after surgery, and more than 30% of the patients who underwent revision TKA stated that they would not have their TKA revised or were uncertain, given the outcome of the procedure. Thus, patients who are candidates for revision TKA should be informed to expect less of an improvement following revision surgery than with the primary TKA. Our findings can facilitate the shared decision-making process by surgeons and patients based on realistic expectations of surgical outcomes. [ Orthopedics . 2023;46(1):e52–e57.]