Skip to main content
OrthoVellum
Knowledge Hub

Study

  • Topics
  • MCQs
  • ISAWE
  • Operative Surgery
  • Flashcards

Company

  • About Us
  • Editorial Policy
  • Contact
  • FAQ
  • Blog

Legal

  • Terms of Service
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Medical Disclaimer
  • Copyright & DMCA
  • Refund Policy

Support

  • Help Center
  • Accessibility
  • Report an Issue
OrthoVellum

© 2026 OrthoVellum. For educational purposes only.

Not affiliated with the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons.

Patellofemoral Arthroplasty

Back to Topics
Contents
0%

Patellofemoral Arthroplasty

Patient selection, surgical technique, and outcomes for isolated patellofemoral joint replacement in the treatment of patellofemoral arthritis

complete
Updated: 2025-12-17
High Yield Overview

PATELLOFEMORAL ARTHROPLASTY (PFA)

Isolated PF replacement | Young active patients | Joint-preserving alternative

1-2%of all knee arthroplasties
40-60ytypical age range
85-90%10-year survival (modern implants)
15-25%conversion to TKA rate

PFA IMPLANT TYPES

Inlay Design
PatternTrochlear component sits in native groove
TreatmentAvon, Journey PFJ
Onlay Design
PatternResurfaces anterior femur surface
TreatmentFPV, Richards II
Custom-fit
PatternPatient-specific instrumentation available
TreatmentHemiCAP PFJ

Critical Must-Knows

  • Strict patient selection: isolated PF arthritis, under 65 years, normal tibiofemoral joints
  • Contraindications: inflammatory arthritis, TF OA grade greater than 2, patella baja, severe trochlear dysplasia
  • Modern inlay designs show better survival than historical onlay designs (90% vs 75% at 10 years)
  • Conversion to TKA is straightforward but requires standard TKA components
  • AOANJRR 2023: PFA revision rate 2.5 times higher than primary TKA but preserves bone stock

Examiner's Pearls

  • "
    Key indication: isolated PF arthritis in young active patient with normal TF compartments
  • "
    Main reason for revision: progression of TF arthritis (not implant failure)
  • "
    Outcomes comparable to TKA for pain relief but better ROM and function
  • "
    Australian registry shows cemented PFA has lower revision than uncemented

Critical PFA Exam Points

Patient Selection

Strict criteria essential. Isolated PF arthritis confirmed on weight-bearing radiographs and standing alignment films. TF compartments must be pristine. Under 65 years ideal. No inflammatory disease.

Contraindications

Absolute: Inflammatory arthritis, TF OA Outerbridge grade greater than 2, patella baja. Relative: Severe trochlear dysplasia (Dejour type D), obesity BMI over 35, high-demand occupation.

Surgical Technique

Precise component positioning critical. Trochlear component must match native groove anatomy. Patellar tracking assessed throughout ROM. Overstuffing causes anterior knee pain and stiffness.

Revision Planning

Conversion to TKA straightforward. PFA preserves bone stock and femoral condyles. Use standard TKA components. Discuss conversion risk (15-25% at 10 years) during consent.

Quick Decision Guide: PFA vs TKA

Patient ScenarioJoint StatusTreatment ChoiceKey Pearl
45-year-old active, isolated PF painIsolated PF OA, pristine TF jointsPatellofemoral arthroplastyPreserves TF compartments, better ROM than TKA
55-year-old, PF pain + mild TF changesPF OA + Outerbridge grade 2 TF changesConsider TKA vs unicompartmental optionsRisk of early PFA failure due to TF progression
65-year-old, multicompartmental painTricompartmental arthritisTotal knee arthroplastyPFA contraindicated with TF involvement
Mnemonic

ISOLATEDPFA Patient Selection Criteria

I
Isolated PF arthritis
No TF involvement on weight-bearing films
S
Sufficient bone stock
No patella baja, adequate trochlear depth
O
Outerbridge grade less than 2 TF
Pristine tibiofemoral compartments essential
L
Low inflammatory markers
Exclude inflammatory arthropathy
A
Age under 65 typically
Young active patients are ideal candidates
T
Tracking normal pre-op
No severe dysplasia or J-sign instability
E
Expectations realistic
Discuss 15-25% conversion risk at 10 years
D
Demand level appropriate
Active but not heavy manual labor

Memory Hook:PFA success requires ISOLATED disease - one compartment only, with perfect patient selection!

Mnemonic

NO-PFAPFA Contraindications

N
iNflammatory arthritis
RA, psoriatic, crystalline arthropathy absolute contraindication
O
Outerbridge grade over 2 TF
Any significant TF cartilage damage predicts failure
P
Patella baja
Insall-Salvati ratio less than 0.8 makes tracking difficult
F
Fixed flexion deformity
Over 10 degrees FFD suggests TF pathology
A
Anterior cruciate deficiency
ACL insufficiency leads to abnormal kinematics and failure

Memory Hook:Say NO to PFA when inflammatory disease or TF involvement present - these guarantee failure!

Mnemonic

TRACESurgical Steps for PFA

T
Trochlear groove identification
Mark native anatomy before resection
R
Resection of trochlea
Minimal bone removal, preserve posterior condyles
A
Alignment check
Ensure component matches native trochlear angle
C
Cementation technique
Cement both components, pressurize thoroughly
E
Examine tracking
No-thumbs test throughout full ROM before closure

Memory Hook:TRACE the patella through ROM - tracking assessment is the final critical step!

Overview and Epidemiology

Patellofemoral arthroplasty is a joint-preserving alternative to total knee arthroplasty for patients with isolated patellofemoral arthritis. The procedure involves replacement of the patellofemoral joint while preserving the native tibiofemoral compartments, femoral condyles, and cruciate ligaments.

Historical Context

Early PFA designs (1970s-1990s) had poor outcomes with high failure rates, leading to abandonment of the procedure. Modern implant designs introduced after 2000, particularly inlay trochlear components, have dramatically improved survival rates to approach those of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.

Ideal Candidate

  • Age 40-60 years (though can extend to 70)
  • Isolated anterior knee pain
  • Failed conservative management over 6 months
  • Radiographic isolated PF arthritis
  • Active lifestyle goals
  • BMI under 35
  • Realistic expectations

Disease Prevalence

  • Isolated PF OA: 10% of all knee OA
  • Post-traumatic PF arthritis common after fracture
  • Trochlear dysplasia association in 50% cases
  • Patella alta/baja alter mechanics
  • Prior realignment surgery common history

Anatomy and Biomechanics

Critical Anatomy for PFA

The patellofemoral joint experiences the highest contact stresses in the body (up to 6 times body weight during stair descent). The trochlear groove anatomy is highly variable between individuals, making component fit critical for successful PFA outcomes. Trochlear dysplasia (Dejour classification) must be assessed pre-operatively.

Anatomical FeatureClinical SignificanceSurgical Implication
Trochlear groove depthNormal depth 3-5mm, dysplasia less than 3mmShallow groove limits inlay component seating
Sulcus angleNormal 138-145 degrees, dysplasia over 145 degreesWide angle increases lateral tracking forces
Patellar height (Insall-Salvati)Normal 0.8-1.2, alta over 1.2, baja under 0.8Baja is contraindication, alta needs lateral release
Q-angleNormal under 20 degrees, abnormal over 20 degreesHigh Q-angle may require tibial tubercle osteotomy

Patellofemoral Kinematics

The patella engages the trochlear groove at approximately 20 degrees of flexion. Contact area increases with flexion, shifting from inferior pole (30 degrees) to superior pole (90 degrees). Maximum contact stress occurs at 45-60 degrees flexion during activities like stair climbing.

Forces Across PF Joint

  • Walking: 0.5 times body weight
  • Stair climbing: 3-4 times body weight
  • Stair descent: 5-6 times body weight
  • Squatting: 7-8 times body weight
  • Running: 8-10 times body weight

Contact Area Variation

  • 20-30° flexion: Inferior pole contact
  • 45-60° flexion: Mid-patellar ridge contact (peak stress)
  • 90° flexion: Superior pole contact
  • Over 120° flexion: Odd facet engagement
  • Component must replicate native contact patterns

Classification Systems

Dejour Classification of Trochlear Dysplasia

TypeFeaturesPFA SuitabilityManagement
Type ACrossing sign only, normal depthSuitable for PFAStandard inlay component works well
Type BFlat/convex trochlea, sulcus angle over 145°Challenging for PFAMay require onlay design or TKA
Type CAsymmetric lateral facet, cliff signChallenging for PFAConsider trochleoplasty alternative
Type DCliff + vertical link + asymmetryContraindication to PFATKA or trochleoplasty preferred

Dysplasia Impact on PFA

Severe dysplasia (Dejour C and D) is a relative to absolute contraindication for PFA. The abnormal trochlear anatomy makes component positioning difficult and increases risk of maltracking and instability. Types C and D have 3-4 times higher revision rates.

Outerbridge Classification for Cartilage Assessment

Critical for determining suitability of tibiofemoral compartments.

GradeCartilage ChangesTF Compartment StatusPFA Decision
Grade 0-1Normal or softening onlySuitable for PFAProceed if isolated PF disease
Grade 2Fibrillation less than 1.5cmBorderline for PFAHigh risk of progression, consider TKA
Grade 3-4Deep fissures or bone exposureContraindication to PFARequires TKA for durable result

Assessment during arthroscopy or at time of surgery is critical - radiographs may underestimate TF disease severity.

PFA Implant Design Classification

Design TypeCharacteristicsSurvival DataCurrent Status
Inlay (modern)Fits in native trochlear groove, preserves geometry85-90% at 10 yearsPreferred current design (Avon, Journey PFJ)
Onlay (historical)Resurfaces anterior femur, alters joint line70-75% at 10 yearsLargely abandoned due to poor outcomes
Custom-fitPatient-specific based on CT/MRI imagingLimited long-term dataGrowing use, particularly HemiCAP system

Modern inlay designs show significantly better outcomes than historical onlay designs due to restoration of native trochlear geometry.

Component Selection Impact

The choice between inlay and onlay designs has dramatic impact on outcomes. Inlay designs (Avon, Journey PFJ) restore native trochlear geometry and show 85-90% 10-year survival. Historical onlay designs altered joint mechanics and had only 70-75% survival, leading to their abandonment. Always use modern inlay designs with cemented fixation per Australian registry data.

Clinical Assessment

History

  • Pain location: Anterior knee, retropatellar, peripatellar
  • Aggravating factors: Stairs, squatting, prolonged sitting (theater sign)
  • Duration: Minimum 6 months failed conservative treatment
  • Previous surgery: Prior realignment procedures common
  • Trauma history: Post-fracture PF arthritis
  • Activity level: Important for realistic expectations
  • Mechanical symptoms: Locking suggests loose body

Examination

  • Gait: Antalgic, avoid stairs
  • Alignment: Varus/valgus deformity (suggests TF disease)
  • Effusion: Significant effusion unusual in isolated PF OA
  • Patellar tracking: J-sign indicates dysplasia/instability
  • Crepitus: Patellofemoral crepitus on ROM
  • ROM: Full ROM typical (unlike TF OA)
  • Tenderness: Joint line tenderness suggests TF pathology

Red Flags for TF Involvement

Exclude these findings before proceeding with PFA:

  • Joint line tenderness on palpation (suggests TF arthritis)
  • Fixed flexion deformity over 10 degrees (indicates posterior capsule contracture from TF disease)
  • Varus/valgus thrust on gait (mechanical axis deviation from TF wear)
  • Significant effusion (active TF synovitis more common than isolated PF)

Special Tests

Clinical Testing Protocol

InstabilityPatellar Apprehension

Lateral translation of patella with knee in 20-30 degrees flexion. Positive test indicates dysplasia or prior instability. Not a contraindication but requires careful component positioning.

ArthritisPatellar Grind Test

Compression of patella against trochlea with knee extension. Crepitus and pain confirm PF pathology. Useful for demonstrating isolated PF disease to patient.

QuadricepsClarke Test

Patient contracts quadriceps against resistance with knee extended. Pain indicates PF pathology. Low specificity but high sensitivity.

FunctionalTheater Sign

Ask about pain after prolonged sitting with knees flexed (at movies, theater). Classic for PF arthritis. Helps differentiate from TF disease.

Investigations

Imaging Protocol

First LineWeight-Bearing Radiographs

AP standing: Assess TF compartments for OA, alignment Lateral: Measure Insall-Salvati ratio (patellar height), assess trochlear depth Skyline/Merchant view: 45-degree flexion, assess PF joint space, subluxation Long-leg alignment films: Mechanical axis, exclude varus/valgus malalignment

Key measurements: Insall-Salvati 0.8-1.2 normal, sulcus angle under 145 degrees, congruence angle less than 16 degrees.

Problem SolvingCT Scan

Indications: Assess trochlear dysplasia severity, measure TT-TG distance if tracking abnormal Measurements: Dejour classification, sulcus angle, lateral trochlear inclination Patient-specific implants: Some systems require CT for custom component manufacture

Cartilage DetailMRI

Indications: Young patients, exclude meniscal pathology, assess cartilage status all compartments Findings: Full-thickness PF cartilage loss, confirm pristine TF cartilage, meniscal tears Limitation: May overestimate TF disease severity (high sensitivity, lower specificity)

ArthroscopyDiagnostic Scope

Gold standard for cartilage assessment if uncertainty Allows grading of TF compartments (Outerbridge) Therapeutic: Loose body removal, chondroplasty Risk: May increase stiffness if PFA performed soon after

Key Radiographic Findings

  • PF joint: Narrowing, osteophytes, bone-on-bone contact
  • TF compartments: MUST be pristine (no joint space narrowing)
  • Alignment: Mechanical axis neutral (varus/valgus suggests TF disease)
  • Patellar height: Insall-Salvati ratio 0.8-1.2 normal
  • Trochlear depth: Greater than 3mm normal, less than 3mm dysplastic

MRI Findings

  • Full-thickness PF cartilage loss: Confirms isolated disease
  • TF cartilage: Should be intact (Outerbridge grade 0-1)
  • Bone marrow edema: Common in PF joint, indicates active disease
  • Menisci: Usually intact in isolated PF OA
  • Trochlear dysplasia: Assess severity and symmetry

Management Algorithm

📊 Management Algorithm
Patellofemoral arthroplasty treatment algorithm showing candidacy assessment, contraindications, and implant options
Click to expand
PFA treatment algorithm: Isolated PF arthritis with normal TF compartments indicates good candidacy. Contraindications include inflammatory arthritis, TF involvement, and severe trochlear dysplasia (Dejour C/D). Modern inlay designs show 85-90% 10-year survival.Credit: OrthoVellum

Non-Operative Treatment (Mandatory 6-12 Months)

All patients must fail comprehensive conservative treatment before considering PFA.

Staged Conservative Protocol

0-6 weeksInitial Phase
  • NSAIDs: Regular dosing for anti-inflammatory effect
  • Activity modification: Avoid stairs, squatting, kneeling
  • Weight loss: If BMI over 30, target 5-10% reduction
  • Ice therapy: After activities to reduce inflammation
  • Bracing: Patella-stabilizing brace if tracking abnormal
6 weeks - 3 monthsPhysiotherapy
  • VMO strengthening: Selective quadriceps exercises
  • Hip abductor work: Gluteus medius weakness common
  • Hamstring stretching: Reduce PF contact force
  • Proprioception: Balance and stability exercises
  • Taping: McConnell taping for symptom relief
3-6 monthsInjection Therapy
  • Corticosteroid: Intra-articular if significant synovitis
  • Hyaluronic acid: May provide 3-6 months relief
  • PRP: Limited evidence but low risk option
  • Response: Good response suggests inflammatory component
After 6 monthsSurgical Consideration

Only if failed ALL conservative measures and isolated PF disease confirmed.

Conservative treatment success rate only 20-30% for established PF arthritis, but mandatory before surgery.

Treatment Algorithm by Patient Age and Disease Pattern

Patient ProfileDisease PatternSurgical OptionRationale
Under 40 years, activeIsolated PF OA, normal alignmentConsider tibial tubercle osteotomy firstPreserve bone stock, addresses maltracking
40-65 years, activeIsolated PF OA, failed conservativePatellofemoral arthroplastyJoint preservation, excellent pain relief
40-65 years, isolated PFSevere dysplasia (Dejour C/D)Consider TKA or trochleoplastyPFA high failure risk with severe dysplasia
Over 65 years, low demandPF OA + mild TF changesTotal knee arthroplastyMore predictable long-term outcome
Any ageTricompartmental OATotal knee arthroplastyPFA absolutely contraindicated

Decision between PFA and TKA is critical and must be individualized based on patient factors and surgeon experience.

Management of Failed PFA

Conversion to TKA is the most common revision scenario (accounts for 60-70% of PFA revisions).

Revision Planning

AssessmentDiagnosis
  • Progression: TF arthritis most common (50% of revisions)
  • Loosening: Aseptic loosening femoral or patellar component
  • Maltracking: Persistent anterior knee pain from poor positioning
  • Infection: Rare but must exclude (ESR, CRP, aspiration)
WorkupInvestigation
  • Radiographs: Assess TF compartments, component position, loosening
  • CT: If component position unclear or planning custom components
  • Infection screen: If any suspicion (elevated CRP, wound issues)
DecisionSurgical Planning
  • TF progression: Convert to primary TKA (standard components work)
  • Isolated loosening: Revision PFA possible if TF pristine
  • Maltracking only: Consider realignment, rarely revision PFA
  • Infection: Two-stage revision with antibiotic spacer

Conversion to TKA

PFA to TKA conversion uses standard primary TKA components in over 90% of cases. Bone stock is preserved compared to primary TKA, making conversion straightforward. Outcomes after conversion are equivalent to primary TKA. This is a major advantage of PFA - failed PFA does not compromise future options.

Six-panel radiograph comparison showing pre-operative patellofemoral arthritis and post-conversion to total knee arthroplasty
Click to expand
PFA to TKA conversion case: (a) Pre-operative Merchant view showing severe grade IV patellofemoral arthritis with bone-on-bone contact, standing AP and lateral views of left knee. (b) Post-conversion TKA with Merchant view demonstrating patellar component, AP and lateral views showing well-positioned total knee arthroplasty components after conversion from failed PFA due to tibiofemoral arthritis progression.Credit: Tian YH, Chen KL, Wang PH, Wu PK, Chen CF, Chen WM

Surgical Technique

Pre-operative Planning

Consent Points

  • Progression to TF OA: 15-25% require conversion to TKA at 10 years
  • Infection: 1-2% deep infection risk
  • Stiffness: 5-10% develop significant stiffness
  • Anterior knee pain: 10-15% persistent pain despite well-positioned components
  • Maltracking: Patellar instability or subluxation 3-5%
  • DVT/PE: Standard arthroplasty risks, chemical prophylaxis used
  • Revision: Overall revision rate 2.5 times higher than TKA

Equipment Checklist

  • Implants: PFA system (Avon, Journey PFJ, or similar), trial components
  • Power tools: Oscillating saw, high-speed burr for trochlear preparation
  • Imaging: C-arm for intra-operative imaging if needed
  • Instruments: Specific PFA instrumentation set
  • Cement: Antibiotic-loaded PMMA (Australian registry data supports cemented)
  • Backup: Have TKA components available if conversion needed

Patient Positioning and Setup

Setup Checklist

Step 1Position

Supine on standard operating table.

  • Leg holder on operative side (allows controlled flexion-extension)
  • Thigh tourniquet applied high on thigh
  • Contralateral limb: Padded leg holder or well leg holder
  • Hip bump: Small bump under ipsilateral hip for neutral rotation
Step 2Tourniquet
  • Placement: High on thigh to allow full access
  • Pressure: 100mmHg above systolic (typically 300mmHg)
  • Exsanguination: Elevation and Esmarch bandage
  • Timing: Inflate after prep and drape, before incision
Step 3Draping
  • Landmarks exposed: Anterior superior iliac spine to tibial tubercle visible
  • Limb position: Ensure full ROM from extension to over 120 degrees flexion
  • Prep: Chlorhexidine or iodine, circumferential limb prep
  • Drape: Standard arthroscopy or knee replacement draping

Positioning Pearl

Ensure the leg holder allows easy transition from full extension to over 120 degrees of flexion. You need to assess patellar tracking throughout the entire ROM intraoperatively, so positioning must facilitate this.

Surgical Approach: Medial Parapatellar

Step-by-Step Approach

Step 1Skin Incision

Landmarks: Midline or slightly medial incision Length: 10-12cm from proximal pole patella to tibial tubercle level Orientation: Straight longitudinal, centered over patella Consideration: Can extend proximally or distally if needed for exposure

Step 2Arthrotomy

Incision: Medial parapatellar arthrotomy

  • Start 2cm proximal to superior pole of patella
  • Continue along medial border of patella
  • Extend to medial border of patellar tendon distally
  • Stay 5-8mm medial to patellar edge to preserve blood supply

Preserve Patellar Blood Supply

The main blood supply enters the patella from the medial side. Stay at least 5mm medial to the patellar edge to avoid devascularizing the patella, which increases risk of patellar fracture and avascular necrosis.

Step 3Exposure

Evert patella: Laterally and inferiorly with knee in flexion Protect: Avoid excessive tension on patellar tendon Visualize: Entire trochlear groove from proximal to distal Assess: TF compartments for any cartilage damage (confirm suitable for PFA)

Step 4Soft Tissue Release

Lateral release: Usually NOT needed with modern inlay designs If needed: Only if severe maltracking persists after component trial Medial plication: Rarely needed, avoid over-tensioning Fat pad: Partial excision if impinges on prosthesis

Standard medial parapatellar approach provides excellent exposure for PFA and preserves option for TKA conversion if needed.

Trochlear Component Preparation

This is the most critical technical step - trochlear component position determines tracking and outcome.

Femoral Preparation Steps

Step 1Mark Native Anatomy
  • Identify: Native trochlear groove with knee in flexion
  • Mark: Central groove with methylene blue or electrocautery
  • Reference: Proximal extent of trochlea (important for component height)
  • Measure: Trochlear groove depth with sizing guide
Step 2Sizing
  • Trial components: Place sizing guides to determine optimal size
  • Fit: Component should fill trochlear groove without overhang
  • AP dimension: Match native trochlear length
  • Medial-lateral: Centered on native groove, no overstuffing
Step 3Resection Guide Placement
  • Pin fixation: Secure cutting guide to distal femur
  • Rotation: Align with anatomical axis and native groove
  • Height: Position to preserve bone stock, match trial
  • Check: Verify alignment before committing to bone cuts
Step 4Bone Resection
  • Oscillating saw: Remove anterior femoral cortex per guide
  • Depth: Minimal bone removal (typically 5-8mm anterior cortex)
  • Shape: Create flat or slightly curved bed for component
  • Preserve: Posterior condyles intact, no TF joint violation

Avoid Notching Femur

Do NOT extend resection posteriorly into the femoral condyles. Notching the anterior femoral cortex weakens it and risks supracondylar fracture. Keep resection limited to trochlear region only.

Step 5Fine Tuning
  • High-speed burr: Smooth bone surface, improve cement interdigitation
  • Remove osteophytes: Medial and lateral femoral osteophytes
  • Trial component: Check fit, should sit flush without rocking
  • Pulsatile lavage: Clean bone surface before cementation

Precise trochlear component positioning is the key to successful PFA - small errors lead to maltracking and failure.

Patellar Component Preparation

Patellar Resection Steps

Step 1Measure Thickness
  • Caliper: Measure native patellar thickness at thickest point
  • Target: Restore native thickness (typically 20-24mm total)
  • Calculation: Resect enough for component plus cement (component thickness + 2mm cement)
  • Mark: Superior, inferior, medial, lateral landmarks before resection
Step 2Resection
  • Clamp: Secure patella with bone clamp or holding forceps
  • Free-hand vs guide: Can use cutting guide or free-hand with saw
  • Cut: Remove anterior cortex, keep cut parallel to anterior surface
  • Depth: Leave 12-15mm posterior bone stock minimum

Avoid Patellar Fracture

Leave at least 12mm of posterior patellar bone stock. Thinner than 12mm dramatically increases risk of intra-operative or post-operative patellar fracture. If patella is very thin, consider resurfacing with thinner polyethylene component.

Step 3Preparation
  • Drill holes: 3-5 small drill holes for cement fixation pegs
  • Smooth surface: Burr any irregularities
  • Trial: Check component fits well, no rocking
  • Thickness check: Composite thickness (bone + component + cement) equals native

Component Cementation and Final Positioning

Cementation Steps

Step 1Preparation
  • Lavage: Pulsatile lavage of all bone surfaces
  • Dry: Thoroughly dry with gauze and suction
  • Cement mixing: Antibiotic-loaded PMMA, vacuum mix
  • Timing: Apply cement in dough phase (not too runny, not too hard)
Step 2Femoral Component
  • Cement: Apply thin layer to bone bed, pressurize
  • Component: Press component firmly into position
  • Alignment: Ensure centered on trochlear groove, correct rotation
  • Hold: Maintain pressure until cement cures (3-5 minutes)
  • Remove excess: Clean cement before full cure
Step 3Patellar Component
  • Cement: Apply to patellar bone and component pegs
  • Position: Center on patella, ensure no malrotation
  • Press: Apply firm pressure with holding forceps
  • Maintain position: Until cement fully cured
Step 4Cement Curing
  • Time: Allow full 8-10 minutes for complete polymerization
  • Temperature: Monitor cement temperature (exothermic reaction)
  • Remove excess: All visible cement tags and debris
  • Lavage: Thorough washout before final tracking assessment

Australian registry data shows cemented PFA has lower revision rate than uncemented - cement all components.

Patellar Tracking Assessment (Critical Final Step)

No-Thumbs Test

0°Full Extension
  • Release tourniquet temporarily for assessment
  • Bring knee to full extension
  • Patella should track centrally in trochlea
  • No lateral subluxation or tilt
0-30°Early Flexion
  • Observe patella engagement with trochlear component
  • Should engage smoothly without jumping
  • This is the critical range for patient symptoms
30-90°Mid Flexion
  • Patella should remain centrally positioned
  • No lateral tracking or J-sign
  • Smooth gliding throughout range
  • This range has highest contact stresses
90-120°+Deep Flexion
  • Patella should remain stable and central
  • No impingement or overstuffing sensation
  • Component should not contact tibia in deep flexion

No-Thumbs Test

The "no-thumbs test" is performed by flexing and extending the knee WITHOUT touching the patella. If the patella tracks centrally throughout ROM without manual guidance, tracking is acceptable. If you need to manually guide the patella (using your thumbs) to keep it centered, tracking is inadequate and requires correction (lateral release or component revision).

Acceptable Tracking

  • Central position throughout 0-120° ROM
  • No lateral subluxation or tilt
  • Smooth engagement at 20-30° flexion
  • No manual guidance needed (no-thumbs test passes)
  • Patient able to do straight leg raise without lag

Unacceptable Tracking

  • Lateral subluxation at any point in ROM
  • J-sign (lateral deviation then reduction in early flexion)
  • Tilt requiring manual correction
  • Jumping or catching sensation
  • Action: Assess component position, consider lateral release

Closure

Closure Steps

Step 1Final Lavage
  • Irrigation: 3-6 liters normal saline
  • Debris removal: All cement fragments and bone debris
  • Tourniquet: Deflate and achieve hemostasis
  • Bleeding points: Cauterize or ligate as needed
Step 2Drain Decision
  • Drain: Usually NOT used for PFA (limited dead space)
  • If used: Remove at 24 hours or when output under 30mL per 8 hours
Step 3Arthrotomy Closure
  • Layer: Close medial parapatellar arthrotomy
  • Suture: Number 1 or 0 absorbable (Vicryl or PDS)
  • Technique: Interrupted or running, ensure water-tight closure
  • Check: No gaps in closure that could allow hemarthrosis
Step 4Subcutaneous and Skin
  • Subcutaneous: 2-0 absorbable suture to obliterate dead space
  • Skin: Staples, interrupted nylon, or subcuticular absorbable
  • Dressing: Sterile gauze and crepe bandage
  • Compression: Apply from toes to thigh to reduce swelling

Technical Pearls and Pitfalls

Do's (Pearls)

  • Mark native anatomy: Before resection, mark trochlear groove
  • Minimal bone removal: Preserve bone stock for potential TKA conversion
  • Perfect tracking: Do not accept maltracking, revise if needed
  • Cement all components: Australian registry supports cemented fixation
  • Assess TF compartments: Confirm pristine at time of surgery
  • Restore patellar thickness: Avoid overstuffing (increases contact stress)
  • Trial components: Always trial before cementing final components

Don'ts (Pitfalls)

  • Notch the femur: Avoid posterior extension into condyles (fracture risk)
  • Over-resect patella: Leave minimum 12mm bone stock
  • Accept maltracking: Fix it intraoperatively, not postoperatively
  • Routine lateral release: Only if tracking requires it after components placed
  • Overstuff joint: Composite patellar thickness should equal native
  • Miss TF disease: Confirm no cartilage damage before proceeding
  • Poor component position: Even 2-3mm off leads to poor outcomes

Complications

ComplicationIncidenceRisk FactorsManagement
Progression to TF arthritis15-25% at 10 yearsPre-existing Outerbridge grade 2 TF changes, age over 65Convert to TKA, use standard primary components
Aseptic loosening3-5% at 10 yearsUncemented fixation, poor bone quality, malpositionRevision PFA if TF intact, otherwise TKA
Patellar maltracking5-10%Component malposition, uncorrected dysplasia, inadequate lateral releasePhysiotherapy, consider revision or lateral release
Anterior knee pain10-15% persistentOverstuffing, maltracking, component malpositionExclude infection/loosening, physiotherapy, consider revision
Infection1-2%Diabetes, immunosuppression, prior surgeryEarly: debridement and component retention. Late: two-stage revision
Patellar fracture1-2%Over-resection (under 12mm), avascular necrosis, traumaNon-displaced: conservative. Displaced: ORIF, consider component removal
Stiffness5-10%Overstuffing, poor rehabilitation, infectionPhysiotherapy, manipulation under anesthesia if severe

Progression to TF Arthritis

The most common reason for PFA revision is progression of arthritis to the tibiofemoral compartments, accounting for 50-60% of all PFA revisions. This is NOT a technical failure but rather disease progression. Emphasize this during consent - the 15-25% conversion rate at 10 years is expected, and conversion to TKA is straightforward with excellent outcomes.

Postoperative Care and Rehabilitation

Rehabilitation Timeline

Immediate Post-OpDay 0-1
  • Analgesia: Multimodal analgesia (paracetamol, NSAIDs, opioids PRN)
  • DVT prophylaxis: Chemical (enoxaparin or rivaroxaban) for 10-14 days
  • Cryotherapy: Ice to knee for swelling and pain control
  • Mobilization: Same day weight-bearing as tolerated with physiotherapy
  • Straight leg raise: Begin isometric quadriceps exercises immediately
  • ROM: Gentle flexion-extension exercises, target 90 degrees by day 1
Early Post-OpDays 2-7
  • Weight-bearing: Full weight-bearing as tolerated (no restrictions)
  • Gait aids: Progress from frame to crutches to stick to independent
  • ROM exercises: Active-assisted flexion, aim for 100-110 degrees by discharge
  • Quadriceps: Progressive strengthening, straight leg raise without lag
  • Discharge: Typically day 1-3 for uncomplicated PFA
  • Wound: Remove dressing day 2, check wound, apply simple dressing
Early RehabilitationWeeks 2-6
  • Physiotherapy: Supervised outpatient therapy 2-3 times per week
  • ROM goal: Full extension, 120+ degrees flexion by week 6
  • Strengthening: Progressive resistance exercises, closed chain preferred
  • Proprioception: Balance and stability exercises
  • Activities: Stairs, walking, cycling (stationary bike), swimming
  • Wound: Sutures/staples removed at 10-14 days
Advanced RehabilitationWeeks 6-12
  • Strengthening: Gym-based program, increase resistance progressively
  • Impact activities: Begin low-impact sports (golf, cycling)
  • Functional goals: Stairs without aids, normal gait pattern
  • Return to work: Sedentary work 2-4 weeks, physical work 6-12 weeks
Return to Activity3-6 Months
  • Sports: Gradual return to impact sports (tennis, jogging)
  • Avoid: High-impact activities that increase PF contact force (running, jumping)
  • Expected function: 90% pain relief, normal daily activities, some activity limitations
Long-Term Follow-upOngoing
  • Surveillance: Annual review for first 2 years, then biennial
  • Radiographs: Baseline at 6 weeks, then annually to monitor for TF progression
  • Registry: Report to AOANJRR (mandatory in Australia)
  • Watch for: Increasing pain, mechanical symptoms suggesting TF arthritis

Managing Common Post-Op Issues

IssueLikely CauseManagement
Persistent anterior knee painOverstuffing, maltracking, component positionExclude infection (CRP, ESR), physiotherapy focus on VMO, consider imaging to assess position
Stiffness under 90 degrees at 6 weeksArthrofibrosis, poor compliance with therapyIntensive physiotherapy, consider MUA if no progress by 12 weeks
Wound discharge or erythemaSuperficial vs deep infectionSuperficial: oral antibiotics. Deep: urgent aspiration, debridement if confirmed
Feeling of instability or catchingPatellar maltracking, loose bodyClinical exam for tracking, radiographs for loose body, consider CT if uncertain

Outcomes and Prognosis

Modern inlay PFA designs have dramatically improved outcomes compared to historical onlay designs, with 10-year survival approaching 90% in well-selected patients.

Outcome MeasurePFA ResultComparison to TKA
Pain reliefExcellent in 85-90% of patientsEquivalent to TKA for isolated PF disease
Range of motionMean 125 degrees, often better than pre-opSuperior to TKA (mean 115 degrees)
Function scores (OKS)Mean improvement 15-20 pointsEquivalent to TKA
Return to sportHigher rate low-impact sportsBetter than TKA for golf, cycling, swimming
Revision rate2.5 times higher than TKA (AOANJRR)Higher but conversion straightforward
Kneeling comfortImproved vs pre-op but 30% still avoidSimilar to TKA

Predictors of Poor Outcome

Poor prognostic factors that increase revision risk:

  • Age over 65 years at time of surgery (2x revision rate)
  • Pre-existing TF changes (Outerbridge grade 2 or higher)
  • Severe trochlear dysplasia (Dejour type C or D)
  • BMI over 35
  • Inflammatory arthropathy (absolute contraindication)
  • Onlay design implants (historical, no longer used)

Best outcomes: Age 40-60 years, BMI under 30, isolated PF disease, normal trochlear anatomy, inlay design implant.

Australian Registry Data (AOANJRR 2023)

Key Findings

  • PFA represents 1.2% of all knee arthroplasties in Australia
  • Cumulative revision rate: 8.2% at 10 years (vs 3.3% for TKA)
  • Cemented fixation: Lower revision than uncemented (HR 0.6)
  • Most common reason for revision: Progression to TF arthritis (52%)
  • Second most common: Loosening/lysis (18%)

Implications

  • PFA is an effective option for isolated PF arthritis
  • Patient selection is critical - exclude any TF disease
  • Use cemented fixation (lower revision rate)
  • Counsel patients about conversion risk (realistic expectation)
  • Conversion to TKA has good outcomes (not a failed treatment)

Evidence Base and Key Trials

Six-panel radiograph comparison showing pre-operative patellofemoral arthritis and 10-year post-operative patellofemoral arthroplasty
Click to expand
Long-term PFA outcomes: (a) Pre-operative imaging of 57-year-old female with Iwano grade IV patellofemoral arthritis showing severe PF joint space narrowing on Merchant view with preserved tibiofemoral compartments on standing AP and lateral views. (b) 10-year post-operative follow-up demonstrating well-positioned PFA with visible trochlear component and patellar button on Merchant view. AP and lateral radiographs show maintained tibiofemoral joint space with acceptable mild narrowing - successful long-term result without need for conversion.Credit: Tian YH, Chen KL, Wang PH, Wu PK, Chen CF, Chen WM

Warwick Patellofemoral Arthroplasty Trial

2
Odumenya M et al • BMC Musculoskelet Disord (2011)
Key Findings:
  • Prospective randomized trial: PFA vs TKA for isolated PF arthritis
  • PFA group: Better ROM (mean 132° vs 115° for TKA)
  • Pain relief equivalent between PFA and TKA at 2 years
  • PFA group: Higher activity scores and satisfaction with kneeling
  • No difference in complication rates between groups
Clinical Implication: For isolated PF arthritis, PFA provides equivalent pain relief to TKA with superior ROM and function. This supports PFA as first-line for isolated disease in appropriate candidates.
Limitation: Relatively short follow-up (2 years) does not capture long-term progression to TF arthritis. Small sample size (n=40) limits power for complication detection.

Systematic Review: Modern PFA Outcomes

3
Dy CJ et al • J Bone Joint Surg Am (2012)
Key Findings:
  • Meta-analysis of 1,112 PFAs from multiple studies
  • Modern inlay designs: 10-year survival 85-90%
  • Historical onlay designs: 10-year survival 70-75%
  • Conversion to TKA accounts for 60% of revisions
  • Outcomes after conversion equivalent to primary TKA
Clinical Implication: Modern inlay PFA designs have acceptable long-term survival approaching UKA. Design evolution has been critical to improved outcomes.
Limitation: Heterogeneous studies with different implant designs and patient selection criteria. Registry data more reliable than pooled case series.

Australian Registry Analysis: PFA vs TKA

3
AOANJRR • Annual Report (2023)
Key Findings:
  • 11-year cumulative revision rate: PFA 8.2% vs TKA 3.3%
  • Cemented PFA: Lower revision than uncemented (HR 0.6, p less than 0.001)
  • Progression to TF arthritis: Most common reason for revision (52%)
  • Patient age over 65: Increased revision risk (HR 1.8)
  • Conversion to TKA uses primary components in over 90% of cases
Clinical Implication: Australian data confirms higher revision rate for PFA vs TKA but supports cemented fixation. Age under 65 and meticulous patient selection are critical for success.
Limitation: Registry data subject to selection bias and incomplete capture of all revisions. Does not capture patient-reported outcomes or function.

Long-term PFA Outcomes with Journey PFJ

4
Schiavone Panni A et al • Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc (2015)
Key Findings:
  • Prospective case series: 50 PFAs with minimum 5-year follow-up
  • 10-year survival: 88% (95% CI 76-94%)
  • Mean OKS improvement: 18 points (pre-op 28, post-op 46)
  • Conversion to TKA: 12% at 10 years, all due to TF progression
  • No patellar fractures, no aseptic loosening in surviving implants
Clinical Implication: Journey PFJ (inlay design) shows excellent medium-term outcomes with low mechanical complication rate. TF progression is expected in subset of patients and should be discussed during consent.
Limitation: Single-surgeon case series with potential selection bias. No comparison group. Relatively small numbers for rare complication detection.

Cost-Effectiveness: PFA vs TKA for Isolated PF OA

3
Oduwole KO et al • Bone Joint J (2018)
Key Findings:
  • Economic analysis using Markov model over 30 years
  • PFA: Lower initial cost but higher revision rate
  • TKA: Higher initial cost but more predictable long-term survival
  • QALY gained: PFA 0.12 higher than TKA in well-selected patients
  • Cost per QALY: PFA dominant in patients under 60 years
Clinical Implication: For young patients (under 60) with isolated PF arthritis, PFA is cost-effective compared to TKA despite higher revision rate. Bone preservation and easier revision surgery contribute to value.
Limitation: Model assumptions based on limited long-term data. Patient selection in real-world practice may not match ideal scenario modeled.

Exam Viva Scenarios

Practice these scenarios to excel in your viva examination

VIVA SCENARIOStandard

Scenario 1: Patient Selection for PFA

EXAMINER

"A 52-year-old active female presents with 2 years of anterior knee pain. She has failed 6 months of physiotherapy and intra-articular injection. Weight-bearing radiographs show isolated severe patellofemoral arthritis with bone-on-bone contact. The tibiofemoral compartments appear well preserved. She is asking about patellofemoral arthroplasty after researching online. How would you assess and counsel this patient?"

EXCEPTIONAL ANSWER
This patient is potentially an ideal candidate for patellofemoral arthroplasty, but thorough assessment is essential. I would take a systematic approach: First, detailed history to confirm isolated anterior knee pain (theater sign, stairs, squatting), exclude symptoms suggesting tibiofemoral involvement (joint line pain, locking, mechanical symptoms), and confirm failed conservative management including NSAIDs, activity modification, weight loss if appropriate, physiotherapy focusing on VMO strengthening, and corticosteroid injection. Second, examination focusing on patellar tracking (J-sign would suggest dysplasia), tibiofemoral joint line tenderness (would indicate TF disease), range of motion (should be full or near-full unlike TF arthritis), and alignment (varus or valgus deformity suggests TF involvement). Third, investigations including weight-bearing AP and lateral radiographs to assess TF compartments, skyline view at 45 degrees to assess patellofemoral joint and measure sulcus angle, long-leg alignment films to assess mechanical axis, and consider MRI to definitively exclude TF cartilage damage. If investigations confirm isolated PF disease with pristine TF compartments (Outerbridge grade 0-1), normal trochlear anatomy (no severe dysplasia), and no inflammatory arthropathy, she would be suitable for PFA. I would counsel her that PFA provides excellent pain relief in 85-90% of patients, better range of motion than TKA, faster recovery, but has a 15-25% chance of requiring conversion to TKA at 10 years due to progression of arthritis to the TF compartments. Conversion is straightforward and outcomes are equivalent to primary TKA. I would also discuss standard arthroplasty risks including infection (1-2%), stiffness, persistent anterior knee pain, and need for activity modification (avoid high-impact sports). If she accepts these risks and meets criteria, I would proceed with PFA. If any doubt about TF involvement, I would recommend TKA instead for more predictable long-term outcome.
KEY POINTS TO SCORE
Confirm isolated anterior knee pain pattern (theater sign, stairs)
Exclude tibiofemoral involvement clinically and radiographically
Assess for contraindications (inflammatory arthritis, TF OA, dysplasia)
Counsel about 15-25% conversion to TKA risk at 10 years
Emphasize that conversion is not a failure - it is expected in subset of patients
COMMON TRAPS
✗Missing tibiofemoral disease on clinical examination (joint line tenderness)
✗Not obtaining long-leg alignment films to assess mechanical axis
✗Failing to assess trochlear dysplasia severity (contraindication if Dejour C/D)
✗Not discussing realistic conversion risk (patients need to know this upfront)
LIKELY FOLLOW-UPS
"What imaging would make you reconsider PFA and recommend TKA?"
"How would you manage a patient with isolated PF arthritis but severe trochlear dysplasia?"
"What if she develops increasing medial knee pain 3 years after PFA - how would you investigate and manage?"
VIVA SCENARIOChallenging

Scenario 2: Intra-operative Maltracking After PFA

EXAMINER

"You have just completed a patellofemoral arthroplasty. The trochlear and patellar components are cemented and cured. You perform the no-thumbs test and notice the patella subluxates laterally in early flexion (0-30 degrees) but then reduces and tracks centrally in deeper flexion. What would you do?"

EXCEPTIONAL ANSWER
This is concerning for patellar maltracking which will likely result in persistent anterior knee pain and poor patient satisfaction. I need to address this before closing. My systematic approach: First, I would assess the cause of maltracking by examining component positioning - is the trochlear component centered on the native groove or is it malrotated or too medial causing lateral deviation; checking if I have overstuffed the joint by making the composite patellar thickness greater than native (increases PF contact force and lateral vector); and assessing for uncorrected trochlear dysplasia or patella alta that I may have underestimated pre-operatively. Second, I would attempt non-destructive corrections starting with a thorough lateral release - release the lateral retinaculum from patella to lateral femoral epicondyle, taking care to preserve the superior lateral genicular artery; then reassess tracking with no-thumbs test to see if this corrects the subluxation. If lateral release corrects the tracking (patella now central throughout ROM), I would proceed with closure. However, if maltracking persists despite adequate lateral release, this indicates component malposition and I have two options: Option A is to accept poor tracking and close (NOT acceptable - will have poor outcome and unhappy patient); Option B is to revise the components now while cement is still fresh. I would choose Option B - carefully remove components, irrigate and prepare bone surfaces again, and re-cement with better positioning, ensuring trochlear component is centered on native groove. If I cannot achieve good tracking with standard components due to severe dysplasia, I would consider converting to TKA intra-operatively rather than accepting poor PFA tracking. The key principle is: never accept maltracking at the end of a PFA - fix it now because it will not improve with time and will only lead to patient dissatisfaction and early revision.
KEY POINTS TO SCORE
Never accept maltracking - must be corrected intra-operatively
Systematic assessment of cause: component position, overstuffing, or dysplasia
Lateral release is first-line correction if tracking abnormal
No-thumbs test is the gold standard assessment
If lateral release fails, must revise components or convert to TKA
Poor tracking leads to persistent pain and early revision
COMMON TRAPS
✗Accepting poor tracking and hoping it will improve with physiotherapy (it will not)
✗Closing and planning to do lateral release as a second procedure (should be done now)
✗Not recognizing that maltracking is usually due to component malposition, not just tight lateral structures
✗Proceeding with closure despite failed no-thumbs test
LIKELY FOLLOW-UPS
"Describe your technique for lateral release - where do you start and end?"
"What if the patient has a large hemarthrosis on day 1 after you performed lateral release?"
"How would you counsel the patient if you had to convert to TKA intra-operatively due to maltracking?"
VIVA SCENARIOCritical

Scenario 3: Failed PFA with Progression to TF Arthritis

EXAMINER

"A 58-year-old patient returns 5 years after patellofemoral arthroplasty with increasing medial knee pain over the past 12 months. Initial PFA gave her excellent pain relief for 3 years. Examination shows medial joint line tenderness and small effusion. Radiographs show well-positioned PFA components without loosening, but new bone-on-bone medial compartment arthritis. How would you manage this patient?"

EXCEPTIONAL ANSWER
This is a common scenario - progression of arthritis to the tibiofemoral compartments is the most common reason for PFA revision, accounting for 50-60% of all revisions. This is not a technical failure but rather disease progression, which I would have counseled her about pre-operatively (15-25% conversion risk at 10 years). My management approach: First, I would confirm the diagnosis by taking a detailed history to characterize the new pain (medial joint line pain different from original anterior knee pain, worse with walking and stairs in different pattern); clinical examination showing medial joint line tenderness, small effusion, and possibly early varus thrust; and radiographs confirming medial compartment arthritis with bone-on-bone contact, well-positioned PFA components without signs of loosening or infection. Second, I would exclude infection as a cause of pain by checking inflammatory markers (ESR and CRP) and if any suspicion (elevated CRP, wound concerns), perform knee aspiration for cell count, differential, culture, and alpha-defensin. Third, assuming infection is excluded, I would discuss management options: Option A is conservative management with activity modification, NSAIDs, walking aids, and intra-articular corticosteroid injection - this may buy 6-12 months of symptom relief but unlikely to be durable given bone-on-bone contact. Option B is conversion to total knee arthroplasty - this is the definitive treatment and my recommendation given symptomatic bone-on-bone TF arthritis. I would counsel her that conversion to TKA is straightforward - the PFA components are removed, bone stock is well preserved (better than primary TKA), and standard primary TKA components are used in over 90% of conversions. Outcomes after conversion are equivalent to primary TKA with 90-95% 10-year survival. This is not a failed PFA - it served its purpose for 3-4 years of excellent pain relief and preserved bone stock. Many patients prefer having had those good years with PFA rather than proceeding straight to TKA at age 53. I would proceed with conversion to TKA, remove PFA components, prepare femur and tibia in standard fashion, use cemented posterior-stabilized or cruciate-retaining TKA (PCL should be intact), and have a low threshold for stems if bone stock is compromised during component removal (though usually not needed).
KEY POINTS TO SCORE
TF progression is the most common reason for PFA revision (50-60%)
This is not a technical failure - it is expected disease progression
Exclude infection before attributing pain to TF arthritis progression
Conversion to TKA uses standard primary components in over 90% of cases
Outcomes after conversion are equivalent to primary TKA
PFA served its purpose - gave good years before TKA needed
Bone stock is preserved compared to if TKA had been done initially
COMMON TRAPS
✗Trying prolonged conservative management when bone-on-bone TF arthritis present
✗Not excluding infection (always check ESR/CRP, consider aspiration)
✗Telling patient the PFA was a failure (it was a success for 3-4 years)
✗Planning to use revision TKA components (primary components usually work)
✗Not recognizing that this scenario was discussed during original consent
LIKELY FOLLOW-UPS
"What components would you use for the conversion TKA - CR or PS design?"
"What if the PFA components are well-fixed and difficult to remove - how would you approach this?"
"How would you counsel a patient at the time of initial PFA about this possibility of future conversion?"

MCQ Practice Points

Anatomy Question

Q: What is the normal Insall-Salvati ratio for patellar height, and what ratio would be considered patella baja (a contraindication to PFA)? A: Normal Insall-Salvati ratio is 0.8 to 1.2 (patellar tendon length divided by patellar height). Patella alta is ratio over 1.2, and patella baja is ratio under 0.8. Patella baja is a contraindication to PFA because the patella engages the trochlear groove at a higher flexion angle, making tracking difficult and increasing contact stresses. This leads to anterior knee pain and early failure.

Classification Question

Q: What is the Dejour classification of trochlear dysplasia, and which type is an absolute contraindication to PFA? A: Dejour classification has four types based on radiographic findings: Type A (crossing sign only, normal depth), Type B (flat or convex trochlea, sulcus angle over 145 degrees), Type C (asymmetric lateral facet with cliff sign), and Type D (cliff sign plus vertical link plus asymmetry). Type D is an absolute contraindication to PFA due to severely abnormal anatomy making component positioning impossible and tracking unreliable. Types B and C are relative contraindications with 3-4 times higher revision rates.

Treatment Question

Q: What is the most common reason for revision after PFA, and how are these revisions typically managed? A: Progression of arthritis to the tibiofemoral compartments is the most common reason for PFA revision, accounting for 50-60% of all revisions. This is not a technical failure but expected disease progression. Management is conversion to total knee arthroplasty using standard primary TKA components in over 90% of cases. Outcomes after conversion are equivalent to primary TKA. This is a key counseling point pre-operatively - patients must understand the 15-25% conversion risk at 10 years.

Evidence Question

Q: What does the AOANJRR 2023 data show regarding cemented versus uncemented fixation for PFA? A: Australian registry data from 2023 shows that cemented PFA has significantly lower revision rates compared to uncemented fixation (hazard ratio 0.6, p less than 0.001). This is consistent with TKA registry data showing benefit of cementation. All PFA components (both trochlear and patellar) should be cemented for optimal long-term survival. The registry also shows PFA revision rate is 2.5 times higher than TKA but conversion is straightforward.

Surgical Technique Question

Q: What is the no-thumbs test and what does it assess after PFA? A: The no-thumbs test is performed by flexing and extending the knee throughout the full range of motion without manually touching or guiding the patella. If the patella tracks centrally through 0-120 degrees of flexion without requiring manual guidance, tracking is acceptable. If the surgeon needs to use their thumbs to manually guide the patella to keep it centered, tracking is inadequate and requires correction (lateral release or component revision). This is the gold standard intra-operative assessment of PFA tracking and must be performed before closure.

Complications Question

Q: What is the minimum acceptable posterior patellar bone stock after patellar resection during PFA, and what is the risk of violating this? A: Minimum acceptable posterior patellar bone stock is 12mm. Resecting more than this (leaving less than 12mm) dramatically increases the risk of intra-operative or post-operative patellar fracture. The patella experiences very high contact stresses (up to 6 times body weight during stair descent), so adequate bone stock is essential for load distribution. If the native patella is very thin, consider using a thinner polyethylene component rather than over-resecting the bone.

Australian Context and Medicolegal Considerations

AOANJRR Data (2023)

  • PFA volume: 1.2% of all knee arthroplasties in Australia (increasing trend)
  • Cumulative revision rate: 8.2% at 10 years (vs 3.3% for TKA)
  • Cemented fixation: Lower revision than uncemented (HR 0.6)
  • Age effect: Patients over 65 years have 1.8 times higher revision risk
  • Conversion to TKA: Most common revision, uses primary components 90% of time
  • Mandatory reporting: All PFAs must be reported to AOANJRR within 6 months

Australian Guidelines

  • ACSQHC: Surgical site infection target under 2% for knee arthroplasty
  • VTE prophylaxis: Chemical prophylaxis for minimum 10-14 days per ANZCA guidelines
  • Antibiotic cement: Recommended for all cemented arthroplasty in Australia
  • PBS listing: PFA components covered under PBS arthroplasty item numbers
  • Private health: Waiting periods apply for arthroplasty (12 months)

Medicolegal Considerations

Key documentation and consent requirements:

Pre-operative consent must include:

  • Discussion of 15-25% risk of conversion to TKA at 10 years (this is the most common adverse outcome and must be clearly explained - progression of arthritis is expected in subset of patients)
  • Higher revision rate compared to TKA (2.5 times higher) but conversion is straightforward
  • Standard arthroplasty risks: infection, stiffness, DVT/PE, persistent pain
  • Activity modifications: avoid high-impact sports to preserve implant longevity
  • Alternative treatment options: TKA (more predictable long-term survival), conservative management

Intra-operative documentation:

  • Confirmation of pristine tibiofemoral compartments (Outerbridge grade 0-1)
  • Patellar tracking assessment (no-thumbs test result)
  • Component sizes and lot numbers (for registry reporting)
  • Any complications or concerns (e.g., difficulty with tracking requiring lateral release)

Common litigation issues:

  • Inadequate consent regarding conversion risk (patients claiming they were not told about high chance of TKA)
  • Proceeding with PFA despite TF involvement found intra-operatively (should convert to TKA)
  • Poor patient selection (e.g., inflammatory arthritis, severe dysplasia)
  • Accepting maltracking at time of surgery without correction
  • Not following up for TF progression (annual radiographs recommended first 2-5 years)

Registry reporting:

  • Mandatory AOANJRR reporting within 6 months of surgery
  • Include all device identifiers (UDI) for implants
  • Report revisions promptly if they occur

Hospital Considerations

Public Hospital Pathway

  • Triage category: Category 2 (within 90 days) for severe symptomatic PF arthritis
  • Pre-admission: Nurse-led pre-admission clinic, anesthesia review
  • Length of stay: Typically 1-3 days for uncomplicated PFA
  • Rehabilitation: Public outpatient physiotherapy 2-3 times per week for 6 weeks
  • Follow-up: 6-week, 6-month, and annual review for first 2 years

Private Hospital Pathway

  • Prostheses List: PFA components covered under private health insurance
  • Gap payments: Surgeon and anesthetist fees (out-of-pocket costs)
  • Length of stay: Often 1-2 days with enhanced recovery pathway
  • Rehabilitation: Private physiotherapy (patient responsibility for gap)
  • Implant choice: Wider range of PFA systems available in private sector

PATELLOFEMORAL ARTHROPLASTY

High-Yield Exam Summary

Patient Selection

  • •Isolated PF arthritis, pristine TF compartments (Outerbridge grade 0-1)
  • •Age 40-65 ideal, failed 6 months conservative treatment
  • •Contraindications: inflammatory arthritis, TF OA grade over 2, patella baja, severe dysplasia
  • •BMI under 35, realistic expectations about 15-25% conversion risk at 10y

Implant Types

  • •Inlay design = sits in native trochlear groove = 85-90% 10y survival (Avon, Journey PFJ)
  • •Onlay design = resurfaces anterior femur = 70-75% 10y survival (historical, abandoned)
  • •Cemented fixation better than uncemented per AOANJRR (HR 0.6)

Surgical Steps

  • •Medial parapatellar approach, evert patella, assess TF compartments intra-op
  • •Trochlear prep: Mark native groove, minimal bone removal, precise component position
  • •Patellar prep: Leave minimum 12mm posterior bone stock to prevent fracture
  • •Cement both components, pressurize, allow full cure
  • •No-thumbs test throughout ROM: patella must track centrally without manual guidance

Critical Surgical Pearls

  • •Never accept maltracking - fix intra-op with lateral release or component revision
  • •Restore native patellar thickness - overstuffing causes pain and stiffness
  • •Avoid notching femoral condyles - weakens bone and risks supracondylar fracture
  • •Confirm TF compartments pristine before proceeding - any significant damage = TKA instead

Complications

  • •TF progression = 50-60% of revisions, 15-25% at 10 years, convert to TKA with primary components
  • •Anterior knee pain 10-15% persistent, causes: overstuffing, maltracking, malposition
  • •Patellar fracture 1-2%, avoid by leaving minimum 12mm bone stock
  • •Infection 1-2%, stiffness 5-10%, aseptic loosening 3-5% at 10y
Quick Stats
Reading Time158 min
Related Topics

Ankle Arthrodesis

Avascular Necrosis of the Humeral Head

Elbow Arthritis

Hip Arthrodesis