Early outcomes of patella resurfacing in total knee arthroplasty

Background Patella resurfacing in total knee arthroplasty is a contentious issue. The literature suggests that resurfacing of the patella is based on surgeon preference, and little is known about the role and timing of resurfacing and how this affects outcomes. Methods We analyzed 134,799 total knee arthroplasties using data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. Hazards ratios (HRs) were used to compare rates of early revision between patella resurfacing at the primary procedure (the resurfacing group, R) and primary arthroplasty without resurfacing (no-resurfacing group, NR). We also analyzed the outcomes of NR that were revised for isolated patella addition. Results At 5 years, the R group showed a lower revision rate than the NR group: cumulative per cent revision (CPR) 3.1% and 4.0%, respectively (HR = 0.75, p < 0.001). Revisions for patellofemoral pain were more common in the NR group (17%) than in the R group (1%), and “patella only” revisions were more common in the NR group (29%) than in the R group (6%). Non-resurfaced knees revised for isolated patella addition had a higher revision rate than patella resurfacing at the primary procedure, with a 4-year CPR of 15% and 2.8%, respectively (HR = 4.1, p < 0.001). Interpretation Rates of early revision of primary total knees were higher when the patella was not resurfaced, and suggest that surgeons may be inclined to resurface later if there is patellofemoral pain. However, 15% of non-resurfaced knees revised for patella addition are re-revised by 4 years. Our results suggest an early beneficial outcome for patella resurfacing at primary arthroplasty based on revision rates up to 5 years

Patella retention versus replacement in total knee arthroplasty; functional and clinimetric aspects.

INTRODUCTION: Whether to resurface the patella or not in total knee arthroplasty still remains undecided. Classical scores and questionnaires might not be responsive or demanding enough. This study used two accelerometer based systems to study the hypothesis whether performance based tests are able to detect a difference in patients with or without a resurfaced patella. METHOD: In this retrospective study 53 patients were included and divided into a resurfaced group (n = 31) and a non-resurfaced group (n = 22). Both groups were matched on age and longevity of follow up. Patients were clinically assessed using the Knee Society Score (KSS) at various time points. At final follow up patients were also assessed once using the Dynaport((R)) Knee Test and the Minimod((R)) Gait Test. RESULTS: The Dynaport((R)) Knee Test showed a significant functional advantage for patients with a resurfaced patella [44 vs. 39.7 (P = 0.042)], whereas KSS and The Minimod((R)) were not significant (P values ranging from 0.07 to 0.75). Similar to other reports in literature, using the KSS, it was not possible to identify significant difference between patella resurfacing or retaining in total knee arthroplasty, however using a performance based test it was possible to determine significant difference. The found advantage of patella resurfacing may be less due to pain relief but due to a functional benefit during demanding motion tasks. This finding indicates that current measurement tools may not be accurate or specific enough to detect this difference. Therefore, we recommend complementing the classic evaluation tools with an objective functional test, when conducting a randomized trial to answer the indecision whether to resurface the patella or not