High Rates of Return to Sports Activities and Work After Osteotomies Around the Knee: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

© 2017, The Author(s). Background: Knee osteotomies are proven treatment options, especially in younger patients with unicompartmental knee osteoarthritis, for certain cases of chronic knee instability, or as concomitant treatment for meniscal repair or transplantation surgery. Presumably, these patients wish to stay active. Data on whether these patients return to sport (RTS) activities and return to work (RTW) are scarce. Objectives: Our aim was to systematically review (1) the extent to which patients can RTS and RTW after knee osteotomy and (2) the time to RTS and RTW. Methods: We systematically searched the MEDLINE and Embase databases. Two authors screened and extracted data, including patient demographics, surgical technique, pre- and postoperative sports and work activities, and confounding factors. Two authors assessed methodological quality. Data on pre- and postoperative participation in sports and work were pooled. Results: We included 26 studies, involving 1321 patients (69% male). Mean age varied between 27 and 62 years, and mean follow-up was 4.8 years. The overall risk of bias was low in seven studies, moderate in ten studies, and high in nine studies. RTS was reported in 18 studies and mean RTS was 85%. Reported RTS in studies with a low risk of bias was 82%. No studies reported time to RTS. RTW was reported in 14 studies; mean RTW was 85%. Reported RTW in studies with a low risk of bias was 80%. Time to RTW varied from 10 to 22 weeks. Lastly, only 15 studies adjusted for confounders. Conclusion: Eight out of ten patients returned to sport and work after knee osteotomy. No data were available on time to RTS. A trend toward performing lower-impact sports was observed. Time to RTW varied from 10 to 22 weeks, and almost all patients returned to the same or a higher workload

Erratum: Return to Sport and Work after Randomization for Knee Distraction versus High Tibial Osteotomy: Is There a Difference? (Journal of Knee Surgery DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1721027)

It has been brought to the publisher s attention that the two subparts A and B of Figure 5 were inadvertently swapped in the article with DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1721027 published on November 23, 2020. The corrected figure appears as follows. (Figure Presented)

Use and outcome of 1,220 primary total elbow arthroplasties from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Arthroplasty Replacement Registry 2008–2018

Background and purpose — The Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) was analyzed to determine trends in use of primary total elbow arthroplasty (TEA), the types of prostheses used, primary diagnoses, reasons for and types of revision, and whether the primary diagnosis or prosthesis design influenced the revision rate. Patients and methods — During 2008–2018, 1,220 primary TEA procedures were reported of which 140 TEAs were revised. Kaplan–Meier estimates of survivorship were used to describe the time to first revision and hazard ratios (HR) from Cox proportional hazard models, adjusted for age and sex, were used to compare revision rates. Results — The annual number of TEAs performed remained constant. The 3 most common diagnoses for primary TEA were fracture/dislocation (trauma) (36%), osteoarthritis (OA) (34%), and rheumatoid arthritis (RA) (26%). The cumulative percentage revision for all TEAs undertaken for any reason was 10%, 15%, and 19% at 3, 6, and 9 years. TEAs undertaken for OA had a higher revision rate compared with TEAs for trauma (HR = 1.8, 95% CI 1.1–3.0) and RA (HR = 2.0, CI 1.3–3.1). The Coonrad-Morrey (50%), Latitude (30%), Nexel (10%), and Discovery (9%) were the most used prosthesis designs. There was no difference in revision rates when these 4 designs were compared. The most common reasons for revision were infection (35%) and aseptic loosening (34%). Interpretation — The indications for primary and revision TEA in Australia are similar to those reported for other registries. Revision for trauma is lower than previously reported