Top

Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®

Published in:

01-07-2013 | Clinical Research

Reason for Revision TKA Predicts Clinical Outcome: Prospective Evaluation of 150 Consecutive Patients With 2-years Followup

Authors: Robin W. T. M. van Kempen, MD, Janneke J. P. Schimmel, MSc, Gijs G. van Hellemondt, MD, Hilde Vandenneucker, MD, Ate B. Wymenga, MD, PhD

Published in: Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® | Issue 7/2013

Abstract

Background

There is limited knowledge regarding the relationship between the reason for revising a TKA and the clinical outcome in terms of satisfaction, pain, and function with time.

Questions/purposes

In a cohort of patients receiving a fully revised TKA, we hypothesized (1) outcomes would differ according to reason for revision at 2 years, (2) outcomes would improve gradually during those 2 years, (3) rates of complications differ depending on the reason for revision, and (4) patients with complications have lower scores.

Methods

We studied a prospective cohort of 150 patients receiving a fully revised TKA using a single implant system in two high-volume centers at 24 months of followup. VAS satisfaction, VAS pain, The Knee Society Scoring System^© (KSS) clinical and functional scores, and complication rate were correlated with their reasons for revision, including septic loosening, aseptic loosening, component malposition, instability, and stiffness.

Results

The aseptic loosening group showed better outcomes compared with the instability, malposition, and septic loosening groups, which showed intermediate results (p < 0.05). The stiffness group performed significantly worse on all outcome measures. The outcome for patients with a complication, after treatment of the complication, was less favorable.

Conclusions

The reason for revision TKA predicts clinical outcomes. Satisfaction, pain reduction, and functional improvement are better and complication rates are lower after revision TKA for aseptic loosening than for other causes of failure. For component malposition, instability, and septic loosening groups, there may be more pain and a higher complication rate. For stiffness, the outcomes are less favorable in all scores.

Level of Evidence

Level III, prognostic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Baker P, Cowling P, Kurtz S, Jameson S, Gregg P, Deehan D. Reason for revision influences early patient outcomes after aseptic knee revision. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012; 470:2244–2252.PubMedCrossRef

Brander V, Gondek S, Martin E, Stulberg SD. Pain and depression influence outcome 5 years after knee replacement surgery. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;464:21–26.PubMed

Elson DW, Brenkel IJ. A conservative approach is feasible in unexplained pain after knee replacement: a selected cohort study. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007;89:1042–1045.PubMed

Fosco M, Filanti M, Amendola L, Savarino LM, Tigani D. Total knee arthroplasty in stiff knee compared with flexible knees. Musculoskelet Surg. 2011;95:7–12.PubMedCrossRef

Ghomrawi HM, Kane RL, Eberly LE, Bershadsky B, Saleh KJ; North American Knee Arthroplasty Revision (NAKAR) Study Group. Patterns of functional improvement after revision knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91:2838–2845.PubMedCrossRef

Haidukewych GJ, Jacofsky DJ, Pagnano MW, Trousdale RT. Functional results after revision of well-fixed components for stiffness after primary total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2005;20:133–138.PubMedCrossRef

Hartley RC, Barton-Hanson NG, Finley R, Parkinson RW. Early patient outcomes after primary and revision total knee arthroplasty: a prospective study. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2002;84:994–999.PubMedCrossRef

Hossain F, Patel S, Haddad FS. Midterm assessment of causes and results of revision total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468:1221–1228.PubMedCrossRef

Jacobs MA, Hungerford DS, Krackow KA, Lennox DW. Revision total knee arthroplasty for aseptic failure. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1988;226:78–85.PubMed

10.

Kim J, Nelson CL, Lotke PA. Stiffness after total knee arthroplasty: prevalence of the complication and outcomes of revision. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86:1479–1484.PubMedCrossRef

11.

Lonner JH, Fehring TK, Hanssen AD, Pellegrini VD Jr, Padgett DE, Wright TM, Potter HG. Revision total knee arthroplasty: the preoperative evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91(suppl 5):64–68.PubMedCrossRef

12.

Mandalia V, Eyres K, Schranz P, Toms AD. Evaluation of patients with a painful total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008;90:265–271.PubMed

13.

Meek RM, Masri BA, Dunlop D, Garbuz DS, Greidanus NV, McGraw R, Duncan CP. Patient satisfaction and functional status after treatment of infection at the site of a total knee arthroplasty with use of the PROSTALAC articulating spacer. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85:1888–1892.PubMedCrossRef

14.

Mont MA, Serna FK, Krackow KA, Hungerford DS. Exploration of radiographically normal total knee replacements for unexplained pain. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996;331:216–220.PubMedCrossRef

15.

Parratte S Pagnano MW. Instability after total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90:184–194.PubMed

16.

Patil N, Lee K, Huddleston JI, Harris AH, Goodman SB. Aseptic versus septic revision total knee arthroplasty: patient satisfaction, outcome and quality of life improvement. Knee. 2010;17:200–203.PubMedCrossRef

17.

Pun SY Ries MD. Effect of gender and preoperative diagnosis on results of revision total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008;466:2701–2705.PubMedCrossRef

18.

Saleh KJ, Dyke DC, Tweedie RL, Mohamed K, Ravichandran A, Saleh RM, Gioe TJ, Heck DA. Functional outcome after total knee arthroplasty revision: a meta-analysis. J Arthroplasty. 2002;17:967–977.PubMedCrossRef

19.

Singh J, Sloan JA, Johanson NA. Challenges with health-related quality of life assessment in arthroplasty patients: problems and solutions. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2010;18:72–82.PubMed

20.

Toms AD, Mandalia V, Haigh R, Hopwood B. The management of patients with painful total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2009;91:143–150.PubMed

Title: Reason for Revision TKA Predicts Clinical Outcome: Prospective Evaluation of 150 Consecutive Patients With 2-years Followup
Authors: Robin W. T. M. van Kempen, MD
Janneke J. P. Schimmel, MSc
Gijs G. van Hellemondt, MD
Hilde Vandenneucker, MD
Ate B. Wymenga, MD, PhD
Publication date: 01-07-2013
Publisher: Springer-Verlag
Published in: Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® / Issue 7/2013
Print ISSN: 0009-921X
Electronic ISSN: 1528-1132
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-013-2940-8

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Reason for Revision TKA Predicts Clinical Outcome: Prospective Evaluation of 150 Consecutive Patients With 2-years Followup

Abstract

Background

Questions/purposes

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Level of Evidence

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Questions/purposes

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Level of Evidence

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 7/2013

Slipped Capital Femoral Epiphysis: Relevant Pathophysiological Findings With Open Surgery

Erratum to: What is the Long-term Survival of Impaction Allografting of the Femur?

CORR Insights®: Impact of Preoperative MRSA Screening and Decolonization on Hospital-acquired MRSA Burden

The Fate of Hips That Are Not Prophylactically Pinned After Unilateral Slipped Capital Femoral Epiphysis

Emerging Concepts in Slipped Capital Femoral Epiphysis: Editorial Comment

The Classic: Epiphyseal Coxa Vara or Displacement of the Capital Epiphysis of the Femur in Adolescence