• Kinematic alignment (KA) is an alternative philosophy for aligning a total knee replacement (TKR) which aims to restore all three kinematic axes of the native knee.

• Many of the studies on KA have actually described non-KA techniques, which has led to much confusion about what actually fits the definition of KA.

• Alignment should only be measured using three-dimensional cross-sectional imaging. Many of the studies looking at the influence of implants/limb alignment on total knee arthroplasty outcomes are of limited value because of the use of two-dimensional imaging to measure alignment, potentially leading to inaccuracy.

• No studies have shown KA to be associated with higher complication rates or with worse implant survival; and the clinical outcomes following KA tend to be at least as good as mechanical alignment.

• Further high-quality multi-centre randomized controlled trials are needed to establish whether KA provides better function and without adversely impacting implant survival.

Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2020;5:380-390. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.5.200010

• The aim of this systematic review was to present and assess the quality of evidence for learning curve, component positioning, functional outcomes and implant survivorship for image-free hand-held robotic-assisted knee arthroplasty.

• Searches of PubMed and Google Scholar were performed in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis statement. The criteria for inclusion was any published full-text article or abstract assessing image-free hand-held robotic knee arthroplasty and reporting learning curve, implant positioning, functional outcome or implant survival for clinical or non-clinical studies.

• There were 22 studies included. Five studies reported the learning curve: all were for unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) – no learning curve for accuracy, operative time was reduced after five to 10 cases and a steady surgical time was achieved after eight cases.

• There were 16 studies reporting accuracy: rate of outliers was halved, higher rate of joint line and mechanical axis restoration, supported by low root mean square error values.

• Six studies reported functional outcome: all for UKA, improvement at six to 52 weeks, no difference from manual UKA except when assessed for lateral UKA which showed improved clinical outcomes.

• Two studies reported survivorship: one reported an unadjusted revision rate of 7% at 20 months for medial UKA and the other found a 99% two-year survival rate for UKA.

• There was evidence to support more accurate implant positioning for UKA, but whether this is related to superior functional outcomes or improved implant survivorship was not clear and further studies are required.

Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2020;5:319-326. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.5.190065

• Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is associated with improved functional outcomes but reduced implant survivorship compared to total knee arthroplasty (TKA).

• Surgeon-controlled errors in component positioning are the most common reason for implant failure in UKA, and low UKA case-volume is associated with poor implant survivorship and earlier time to revision surgery.

• Robotic UKA is associated with improved accuracy of achieving the planned femoral and tibial component positioning compared to conventional manual UKA.

• Robotic UKA has a learning curve of six operative cases for achieving operative times and surgical team comfort levels comparable to conventional manual UKA, but there is no learning curve effect for accuracy of implant positioning or limb alignment.

• Robotic UKA is associated with reduced postoperative pain, decreased opiate analgesia requirements, faster inpatient rehabilitation, and earlier time to hospital discharge compared to conventional manual UKA.

• Limitations of robotic UKA include high installation costs, additional radiation exposure with image-based systems, and paucity of studies showing any long-term differences in functional outcomes or implant survivorship compared to conventional manual UKA.

• Further clinical studies are required to establish how statistical differences in accuracy of implant positioning between conventional manual UKA and robotic UKA translate to long-term differences in functional outcomes, implant survivorship, complications, and cost-effectiveness.

Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2020;5:312-318. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.5.190089

• Optimal implant selection is a major component of high-quality arthroplasty care, and revision risk is an important parameter characterizing knee arthroplasty implant clinical performance.

• National and regional arthroplasty registries are essential sources of revision risk data, but these data are often difficult to find because they are buried within extensive annual reports. Summarizing total knee arthroplasty (TKA) implant revision risks as presented in registry reports can maximize the usefulness of registry data for orthopaedic surgeons.

• The findings summarize the revision risk data found in national arthroplasty reports from the Australian, Danish, Finnish, and the England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man registries, and in regional arthroplasty reports from the Emilia-Romagna Region (Italty), and the Michigan Arthroplasty Registry Collaborative Quality Initiative (MARCQI) registries.

• The six supplemental summary tables present revision risk data for TKA implants by cemented, uncemented, hybrid, and unreported fixation types. Additional summary tables are presented for revision risk of unicondylar (UKA) and patellofemoral joint (PFJ) revisions. Within TKA fixation categories, revision risks at 10 years ranged from 2.4% to 35.7% (cemented), 2.8% to 25.0% (uncemented), 2.0% to 9.2% (hybrid), and 0.0% to 39.7% (unreported). Unicondylar 10-year revision risk ranged from 4.9% to 17.2%. Patellofemoral joint 10-year revision risk ranged from 15.2% to 21.7%.

• There is substantial variation in one, three, five, and 10-year revision risk across implants, which suggests surgeons should choose implants carefully.

Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2020;5:268-272. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.5.190053

• Some authors have reported that outpatient total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a successful, safe and cost-effective treatment in the management of advanced osteoarthritis.

• The success obtained has been attributed to the coordination of the multidisciplinary team, standardized perioperative protocols, optimal hospital discharge planning and careful selection of patients.

• One study has demonstrated a higher risk of perioperative surgical and medical outcomes in outpatient TKA than inpatient TKA, including component failure, surgical site infection, knee stiffness and deep vein thrombosis.

• There remains a lack of universal criteria for patient selection. Outpatient TKA has thus far been performed in relatively young patients with few comorbidities.

• It is not yet clear whether outpatient TKA is worth considering, except in very exceptional cases (young patients without associated comorbidities).

• Outpatient TKA should not be generally recommended at the present time.

Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2020;5:172-179. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.5.180101

• It is clear that the stiff total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a multifactorial entity associated with preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative factors.

• Management of the stiff TKA is best achieved by preventing its occurrence using strategies to control preoperative factors, avoid intraoperative technical errors and perform aggressive, painless postoperative physical medicine and rehabilitation; adequate pain control is paramount in non-invasive management.

• Careful attention to surgical exposure, restoring gap balance, minimizing surgical trauma to the patellar ligament/extensor mechanism, appropriate implant selection, pain control and adequate physical medicine and rehabilitation (physiotherapy, Astym therapy) all serve to reduce its incidence.

• For established stiff TKA, there are multiple treatment options available including mobilization under anaesthesia (MUA), arthroscopic arthrolysis, revision TKA, and combined procedures.

Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2019;4:602-610. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.4.180105

• Robotic total knee arthroplasty (TKA) improves the accuracy of implant positioning and reduces outliers in achieving the planned limb alignment compared to conventional jig-based TKA.

• Robotic TKA does not have a learning curve effect for achieving the planned implant positioning. The learning curve for achieving operative times comparable to conventional jig-based TKA is 7–20 robotic TKA cases.

• Cadaveric studies have shown robotic TKA is associated with reduced iatrogenic injury to the periarticular soft tissue envelope compared to conventional jig-based TKA.

• Robotic TKA is associated with decreased postoperative pain, enhanced early functional rehabilitation, and decreased time to hospital discharge compared to conventional jig-based TKA. However, there are no differences in medium- to long-term functional outcomes between conventional jig-based TKA and robotic TKA.

• Limitations of robotic TKA include high installation costs, additional radiation exposure, learning curves for gaining surgical proficiency, and compatibility of the robotic technology with a limited number of implant designs.

• Further higher quality studies are required to compare differences in conventional TKA versus robotic TKA in relation to long-term functional outcomes, implant survivorship, time to revision surgery, and cost-effectiveness.

Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2019;4:611-617. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.4.190022

• Multi radius (MR) total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has been associated with mid-flexion instability.

• Single radius (SR) TKA may provide better anteroposterior stability through single flexion axis and biomechanical advantage for quadriceps function.

• Medial pivot (MP) TKA and gradually reducing (GR) radius TKA produce better knee kinematics.

• Clinical outcomes are equivalent for SR, MR and MP TKA.

• Short-term studies have shown better clinical outcomes and kinematics for GR TKA.

• Thinner and narrow anterior flange, deeper trochlea groove and more anatomical trochlea design reduces patellofemoral complications in TKA

• Ultracongruent inserts provide comparable clinical outcomes to posterior-stabilized TKA and cruciate retaining TKA.

Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2019;4:519-524. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.4.180083

• Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has evolved into a successful, cost-effective treatment for end-stage knee arthrosis.

• The patellofemoral articulation in TKA has largely been ignored during its development despite being an important determinant of outcome.

• New technologies still need further development to incorporate the patella in TKA surgical planning and operative technique.

• Alternative approaches to alignment in TKA will have a secondary impact on patellofemoral mechanics and possibly future implant designs.

• Technologies that assist with precise implant positioning may alter our understanding and overall practice of TKA.

Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2019;4:503-512. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.4.180094

• The gold standard for treating chronic periprosthetic joint infection is still considered to be double-stage exchange revision. The purpose of this review is to analyse the difference in terms of eradication rates and functional outcome after single- and double-stage prosthetic exchange for chronic periprosthetic joint infection around the knee.

• We reviewed full text articles written in English from 1992 to 2018 reporting the success rates and functional outcomes of either single-stage exchange or double-stage exchange for knee arthroplasty revision performed for chronic infection. In the case of double-stage exchange, particular attention was paid to the type of spacer: articulating or static.

• In all, 32 articles were analysed: 14 articles for single-stage including 687 patients and 18 articles for double-stage including 1086 patients. The average eradication rate was 87.1% for the one-stage procedure and 84.8% for the two-stage procedure. The functional outcomes were similar in both groups: the average Knee Society Knee Score was 80.0 in the single-stage exchange group and 77.8 in the double-stage exchange. The average range of motion was 91.4° in the single-stage exchange group and 97.8° in the double-stage exchange group.

• Single-stage exchange appears to be a viable alternative to two -stage exchange in cases of chronic periprosthetic joint infection around the knee, provided there are no contra-indications, producing similar results in terms of eradication rates and functional outcomes, and offering the advantage of a unique surgical procedure, lower morbidity and reduced costs.

Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2019;4:495-502. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.4.190003