Introduction:Stiffness after Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA) is a complication that decreases patient satisfaction. Patients in an Asian population have potentially different requirements of knee range of motion. The authors have encountered patients who complain of subjective stiffness post TKA who do not have a severely restricting range of motion (ROM). Some patients have persistent subjective stiffness and undergone Manipulation Under Anaesthesia (MUA). We look at their functional outcomes post MUA. Materials and Methods: This is a retrospective study, including 48 patients from a single institution who underwent MUA for stiffness, separated into objective and subjective knee stiffness. Patients with subjective knee stiffness who underwent MUA had failed conservative management. ROM, Oxford Knee Scores (OKS), Knee Society Scores (KSS) and Short Form 36 (SF36) scores were compared at two years post MUA. Results: The demographics of the two patient groups were similar. The time interval between index TKA and MUA was higher in the subjective knee stiffness group. Pre-MUA OKS, KS Function Score, KSS and SF36 scores were similar in both patient subgroups. There was no significant difference in the OKS, KSS or SF36 at two year follow-up. The proportion of patients in each group who achieved the Minimum Clinically Important Difference (MCID) improvement in the scores was also similar. Conclusions: Patients with subjective knee stiffness can achieve similar functional outcome improvements in Oxford and Knee Society Scores with MUA at two years follow-up.

Introduction: This study aims to investigate whether patients undergoing two-stage revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) for prosthetic joint infection (PJI) and one-stage revision THA for aseptic reasons have similar clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction during their post-operative follow-up. We hypothesise that the two-stage revision THA for PJI is associated with poorer outcomes as compared to aseptic revision THA. Materials and Methods: We reviewed prospectively collected data in our tertiary hospital arthroplasty registry and identified patients who underwent revision THA between 2001 and 2014, with a minimum of two years follow-up. The study group (two-stage revision THA for PJI) consists of 23 patients and the control group (one-stage revision THA for aseptic reasons) consists of 231 patients. Patient demographics, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC), Oxford Hip Score (OHS), Short Form-36 (SF-36) scores and patient reported satisfaction were evaluated. Student’s t-test was used to compare continuous variables between the two groups. Statistical significance was defined as p <0.05. Results: The pre-operative demographics and clinical scores were relatively similar between the two groups of patients. At two years, patients who underwent revision THA for PJI reported a better WOMAC Pain Score and OHS as compared to aseptic revision THA. A similar proportion of patients were satisfied with their results of surgery in both groups (p=0.093). Conclusions: Although patients who underwent revision THA for PJI had poorer pre-operative functional scores (WOMAC function and SF-36 PF), at two years follow-up, these two groups of patients have comparable post-operative outcomes. Interestingly, patients who had revision THA for PJI reported a better clinical outcome in terms of OHS and WOMAC Pain score as compared to the aseptic group. We conclude that the revision THA for PJI is not inferior to aseptic revision THA in terms of patient satisfaction and clinical outcomes.