(Background) Inertial Measurement Units (IMUs) provide a low-cost, portable solution to obtain functional measures similar to those captured with three-dimensional gait analysis, including spatiotemporal gait characteristics. The primary aim of this study was to determine the feasibility of a remote patient monitoring (RPM) workflow using ankle-worn IMUs measuring impact load, limb impact load asymmetry and knee range of motion in combination with patient-reported outcome measures. (Methods) A pilot cohort of 14 patients undergoing primary knee arthroplasty for osteoarthritis was prospectively enrolled. RPM in the community was performed weekly from 2 up to 6 weeks post-operatively using wearable IMUs. The following data were collected using IMUs: mobility (Bone Stimulus and cumulative impact load), impact load asymmetry and maximum knee flexion angle. In addition, scores from the Oxford Knee Score (OKS), EuroQol Five-dimension (EQ-5D) with EuroQol visual analogue scale (EQ-VAS) and 6 Minute Walk Test were collected. (Results) On average, the Bone Stimulus and cumulative impact load improved 52% (p = 0.002) and 371% (p = 0.035), compared to Post-Op Week 2. The impact load asymmetry value trended (p = 0.372) towards equal impact loading between the operative and non-operative limb. The mean maximum flexion angle achieved was 99.25° at Post-Operative Week 6, but this was not significantly different from pre-operative measurements (p = 0.1563). There were significant improvements in the mean EQ-5D (0.20; p = 0.047) and OKS (10.86; p < 0.001) scores both by 6 weeks after surgery, compared to pre-operative scores. (Conclusions) This pilot study demonstrates the feasibility of a reliable and low-maintenance workflow system to remotely monitor post-operative progress in knee arthroplasty patients. Preliminary data indicate IMU outputs relating to mobility, impact load asymmetry and range of motion can be obtained using commercially available IMU sensors. Further studies are required to directly correlate the IMU sensor outputs with patient outcomes to establish clinical significance.

Purpose: The introduction of robotics for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) into the operating theatre is often associated with a learning curve and is potentially associated with additional complications. The purpose of this study was to determine the learning curve of robotic‐assisted (RA) TKA within a multi‐surgeon team.Methods: This prospective cohort study included 83 consecutive conventional jig‐based TKAs compared with 53 RA TKAs using the Robotic Surgical Assistant (ROSA) system (Zimmer Biomet, Warsaw, Indiana, USA) for knee osteoarthritis performed by three high‐volume (> 100 TKA per year) orthopaedic surgeons. Baseline characteristics including age, BMI, sex and pre‐operative Kellgren‐Lawrence graded and Hip‐Knee‐Ankle Axis were well‐matched between the conventional and RA TKA groups. Cumulative summation (CUSUM) analysis was used to assess learning curves for operative times for each surgeon. Peri‐operative and delayed complications (infection, periprosthetic fracture, thromboembolism, and compromised wound healing) and revisions were reviewed.Results: The CUSUM analysis for operative time demonstrated an inflexion point after 5, 6 and 15 cases for each of the three surgeons, or 8.7 cases on average. There were no significant differences (p = 0.53) in operative times between the RA TKA learning (before inflexion point) and proficiency (after inflexion point) phases. Similarly, the operative times of the RA TKA group did not differ significantly (p = 0.92) from the conventional TKA group. There was no discernible learning curve for the accuracy of component planning using the RA TKA system. The average length of post‐operative follow‐up was 21.3 ± 9.0 months. There was one revision for instability in the conventional TKA group and none in the RA TKA group. There were no significant difference (p > 0.99) in post‐operative complication rates between the conventional TKA and RA TKA groups.Conclusions: The introduction of the RA TKA system was associated with a learning curve for operative time of 8.7 cases. Operative times between the RA TKA and conventional TKA group were similar. The short learning curve implies this RA TKA system can be adopted relatively quickly into a surgical team with minimal risks to patients.

Background: Long-term survivorship and accurate characterization of revision reasons in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) are limited by a lack of long-term data and standardized definitions of revision. The aim of this study was to identify survivorship, risk factors, and reasons for revision in a large cohort of medial UKAs with long-term follow-up (up to 20 years). Methods: Patient, implant, and revision details for 2,015 primary medial UKAs (mean follow-up, 8 years) were recorded following systematic clinical and radiographic review. Survivorship and risk of revision were analyzed using Cox proportional hazards. Reasons for revision were analyzed using competing-risk analysis. Results: Implant survivorship at 15 years was 92% for cemented fixed-bearing (cemFB), 91% for uncemented mobile-bearing (uncemMB), and 80% for cemented mobile-bearing (cemMB) UKAs (p = 0.02). When compared with cemFB, the risk of revision was higher for cemMB implants (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.9, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.1 to 3.2; p = 0.03). At 15 years, cemented implants had a higher cumulative frequency of revision due to aseptic loosening (3% to 4%, versus 0.4% for uncemented; p < 0.01), cemMB implants had a higher cumulative frequency of revision due to osteoarthritis progression (9% versus 2% to 3% for cemFB/uncemMB; p < 0.05), and uncemMB implants had a higher cumulative frequency of revision due to bearing dislocation (4% versus 2% for cemMB; p = 0.02). Compared with the oldest patients (≥70 years), younger patients had a higher risk of revision (<60 years: HR = 1.9, 95% CI = 1.2 to 3.0; 60 to 69 years: HR = 1.6, 95% CI = 1.0 to 2.4; p < 0.05 for both). At 15 years, there was a higher cumulative frequency of revision for aseptic loosening in these younger groups (3.2% and 3.5% versus 2.7% for ≥70 years; p < 0.05). Conclusions: Implant design and patient age were risk factors for revision of medial UKA. The findings from this study suggest that surgeons should consider using cemFB or uncemMB designs because of their superior long-term implant survivorship compared with cemMB designs. Additionally, for younger patients (<70 years), uncemMB designs had a lower risk of aseptic loosening than cemFB designs at the expense of a risk of bearing dislocation. Level of Evidence: Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Introduction: Tranexamic acid (TXA) has been shown to be effective at reducing peri-operative blood loss and haemarthrosis in arthroplasty and arthroscopic soft tissue reconstructions. Intra-articular application, as an injection or peri-articular wash, is becoming increasingly common. Recent studies have shown TXA has the potential to be cytotoxic to cartilage, but its effects on human tendon and bone remain poorly understood. The aim of this study was to investigate whether TXA has any detrimental effects on tendon-derived cells and osteoblast-like cells and determine whether there is a safe dosage for clinical application. Materials and methods: Primary tendon-derived cells and osteoblast-like cells were harvested from hamstring tendons and trabecular bone explants, respectively, and analysed in vitro with a range of TXA concentrations (0 to 100 mg/ml) at time points: 3 and 24 h. The in vitro toxic effect of TXA was investigated using viability assays (alamarBlue), functional assays (collagen deposition), fluorescent microscopy and live/apoptosis/necrosis staining for cell death mechanisms in 2D monolayer and 3D collagen gel cell culture. Results: There was a significant (P < 0.05) decrease in tendon-derived cell and osteoblast-like cell numbers following treatment with TXA ≥ 50 mg/ml after 3 h and ≥ 20 mg/ml after 24 h. In tendon-derived cells, increasing concentrations > 35 mg/ml resulted in significantly (P < 0.05) reduced collagen deposition. Fluorescence imaging confirmed atypical cellular morphologies with increasing TXA concentrations and reduced cell numbers. The mechanism of cell death was demonstrated to be occurring through apoptosis. Conclusions: Topical TXA treatment demonstrated dose- and time-dependent cytotoxicity to tendon-derived cells and osteoblast-like cells with concentrations 20 mg/ml and above in isolated 2D and 3D in vitro culture. On the basis of these findings, concentrations of less than 20 mg/ml are expected to be safe. Orthopaedic surgeons should show caution when considering topical TXA treatments, particularly in soft tissue and un-cemented arthroplasty procedures.

Recently, the indication of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) has expanded beyond rotator cuff arthropathy to include treatment of complex acute proximal humeral fracture (PHF). Limited previous studies have compared the long-term clinical and functional outcomes of patients undergoing RTSA for PHF versus elective indications for degenerative conditions. The purpose of this study was to compare implant survivorship, reasons for revision and functional outcomes in patients undergoing RTSA for acute PHF with those undergoing elective RTSA in a population-based cohort study. Prospectively collected data from the New Zealand Joint Registry from 1999 to 2021 and identified 6,862 patients who underwent RTSA. Patients were categorized by preoperative indication, including PHF (10.8%), rotator cuff arthropathy (RCA) (44.5%), osteoarthritis (OA) (34.1%), rheumatoid arthritis (RA) (5.5%) and old traumatic sequelae (5.1%). Revision-free implant survival and functional outcomes (Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS) at 6-months, 5- and 10-years follow-up) were adjusted by age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class and surgeon experience and compared. Revision-free implant survival at 10 years for RTSA for PHF was 97.3%, compared to 96.1%, 93.7%, 92.8% and 91.3% for OA, RCA, RA and traumatic sequelae, respectively. When compared with RTSA for PHF, the adjusted risk of revision was significantly higher for traumatic sequelae (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.3; p = 0.023) but not for other elective indications. The most common reason for revision in the PHF group was dislocation/instability (42.9%), which was similar to the OA (47.6%) and traumatic sequelae (33.3%) groups. At 6 months post-surgery, OSS were significantly lower for the PHF group compared to RCA, OA and RA groups (31.1 vs. 35.6, 37.7, 36.5, respectively, p < 0.001), and similar to traumatic sequelae (31.7, p = 0.431). At 5 years, OSS were only significantly lower for PHF compared to OA (37.4 vs 41.0, p <0.001) and there was no difference between PHF and other groups. At 10 years, there were no significant differences between groups. RTSA for PHF demonstrated reliable long-term survivorship and functional outcomes compared to elective indications. Despite lower functional outcomes in the early postoperative period for the PHF group, implant survivorship was similar in patients undergoing RTSA for the primary indication of acute PHF compared to RCA, OA and RA; and superior compared to the primary indication of traumatic sequelae.