When do patient-reported assessments peak after revision knee arthroplasty?

High-Dose Compound Betamethasone Used in Local Infiltration Analgesia Does Not Increase Reinfection Rates Following Periprosthetic Joint Infection Treatment

BACKGROUND

Cocktails containing glucocorticoids for local infiltration analgesia (LIA) are highly advocated and effective in managing pain in total joint arthroplasty (TJA). However, it remains ambiguous whether this protocol maintains its safety and efficacy in the treatment of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), a devastating complication of TJA.

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted on 299 single-stage revision cases for PJI spanning the years 2010 to 2021. Of these, 127 received LIAs containing high-dose compound betamethasone (CB) were termed the CB group, and the other 172 were termed the non-CB group. The rates of re-infection and other postoperative complications, along with postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) scores, and opioid consumption were compared.

RESULTS

During minimum 2-year follow-up, there was no significant difference in the re-infection rate between the non-CB and CB groups (9.3 versus 8.7%; P = 0.85), consistent within the subsets of hip (8.4 versus 4.5%; P = 0.51) and knee (10.4 versus 13.3%; P = 0.60) PJIs individually. The administration of high-dose CB was neither an independent risk factor for reinfection (P > 0.05; 95% CI [confidence interval] including 1) nor was it associated with the occurrence of reinfection (P > 0.05). The incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) was significantly lower in the CB group (P < 0.05). In the first 48-hour postoperative period, the CB group exhibited lower mean scores in both resting and movement VAS evaluations (P < 0.05). For knees, the movement VAS scores of the CB group remained lower even at 72 hours post-surgery (P < 0.001). Furthermore, within the first 72 hours post-surgery, the CB group required less additional opioid analgesics than the non-CB group (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

A LIA with a high-dose CB reduces postoperative pain, opioid consumption, and the incidence of PONV following a single-stage revision without affecting reinfection and other complication rates.

Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty Achieves Minimal Clinically Important Difference Faster Than Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) remains underexplored regarding patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), particularly in terms of time to reach minimal clinically important difference (MCID). This study addresses this gap by comparing the time to achieve MCID between primary TKA (pTKA) and rTKA patients, providing valuable insights into their recovery trajectories.

METHODS

A total of 8,266 TKAs (7,618 pTKA and 648 rTKA) were retrospectively studied in a multi-institutional arthroplasty registry. Patients who completed the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) global physical, PROMIS physical function short form 10a (PF-10a), and knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score physical function short form (KOOS-PS) questionnaires were identified by Current Procedural Terminology codes. Survival curves with and without interval censoring were utilized to evaluate the time to achieve MCID.

RESULTS

Comparing the time to achieve MCID, rTKAs were significantly faster than pTKA for PROMIS global physical (3.5 versus 3.7 months, P = 0.004) and KOOS-PS (3.3 versus 4.2 months, P < 0.001), but similar for PROMIS PF-10a (4.4 versus 4.8 months, P = 0.057). Interval censoring also showed similar trends with earlier times to achieve MCID for rTKAs for PROMIS global physical (0.6 to 0.61 versus 0.97 to 0.97 months, P = 0.009) and KOOS-PS (0.97 to 0.97 versus 1.47 to 1.47 months, P < 0.001), but not for PROMIS PF-10a (2.43 to 2.54 versus 1.90 to 1.91 months, P = 0.92).

CONCLUSIONS

The present study revealed that the time to achieve MCID was faster in patients undergoing rTKA compared to those undergoing pTKA. These findings allow surgeons to reassure preoperative rTKA patients that their recovery to a MCID postoperatively may be quicker than expected, especially when compared to their initial recovery after primary TKA.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

A mapping review on preoperative prognostic factors and outcome measures of revision total knee arthroplasty

To map literature on prognostic factors related to outcomes of revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA), to identify extensively studied factors and to guide future research into what domains need further exploration. We performed a systematic literature search in MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science. The search string included multiple synonyms of the following keywords: "revision TKA", "outcome" and "prognostic factor". We searched for studies assessing the association between at least one prognostic factor and at least one outcome measure after rTKA surgery. Data on sample size, study design, prognostic factors, outcomes, and the direction of the association was extracted and included in an evidence map. After screening of 5,660 articles, we included 166 studies reporting prognostic factors for outcomes after rTKA, with a median sample size of 319 patients (30 to 303,867). Overall, 50% of the studies reported prospectively collected data, and 61% of the studies were performed in a single centre. In some studies, multiple associations were reported; 180 different prognostic factors were reported in these studies. The three most frequently studied prognostic factors were reason for revision (213 times), sex (125 times), and BMI (117 times). Studies focusing on functional scores and patient-reported outcome measures as prognostic factor for the outcome after surgery were limited (n = 42). The studies reported 154 different outcomes. The most commonly reported outcomes after rTKA were: re-revision (155 times), readmission (88 times), and reinfection (85 times). Only five studies included costs as outcome. Outcomes and prognostic factors that are routinely registered as part of clinical practice (e.g. BMI, sex, complications) or in (inter)national registries are studied frequently. Studies on prognostic factors, such as functional and sociodemographic status, and outcomes as healthcare costs, cognitive and mental function, and psychosocial impact are scarce, while they have been shown to be important for patients with osteoarthritis.

Assessment of patient satisfaction following revision total knee arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Patient satisfaction is becoming an increasingly important measure of healthcare quality. Satisfaction following RTKA is poorly described within the literature, resulting in difficulty for clinicians to manage patient expectations and obtain informed consent.

METHODS

We investigated postoperative satisfaction of RTKA patients by a single surgeon, using a single prosthesis, at a single institution. Patient satisfaction was assessed using structured telephone assessment questionnaires and review of orthopaedic/hospital records. The effect of patient and surgical characteristics on satisfaction was assessed using correlation coefficients and binary logistic regression in SPSS.

RESULTS

Two hundred and two RTKAs were performed in 178 patients between 2004 and 2015 inclusive. One hundred and twenty-four patients (143 RTKAs) were contactable to complete satisfaction assessment. Eighty-five percent of patients were satisfied and would have the RTKA again, 8% were unsure, 7% would not. Mean reported satisfaction on a numerical scale (1-10) was 8.17 (range 1-10), with 74% of patients scoring 8 or above, and 35% of patients scoring 10. The Mahomed Satisfaction Scale outcomes demonstrated a mean score of 87.7. High positive correlation was found between assessment tools. Logistic regression analysis identified factors contributing to satisfaction included ROM, OKS, BMI, and surgical time.

CONCLUSION

This cohort demonstrated high patient satisfaction rate following RTKA, utilizing simple and reliable outcome measurement tools. We found a high positive correlation between methods of assessment, and moderate positive correlation between satisfaction and functional outcomes. These results contribute to the understanding of satisfaction in RTKA patients, which may assist in informing patients of expected post-operative outcomes.

Patient-Reported Outcomes and Satisfaction 1 to 3 Years After Revisions of Total Knee Arthroplasties for Unexplained Pain Versus Aseptic Loosening

BACKGROUND

It is unknown if patients are relieved of pain after knee arthroplasty revision for unexplained pain. The aim of this cross-sectional case-control study was to compare patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and satisfaction 1 to 3 years after revision of total knee arthroplasties (TKAs) for the indications of unexplained pain versus aseptic loosening.

METHODS

We included 384 patients undergoing TKA revision for the indications of unexplained pain and aseptic loosening from January 1, 2018 to December 31, 2020 from the Danish Knee Arthroplasty Register. A total of 81 patients were revised for unexplained pain and 303 for aseptic loosening. Questionnaires including PROMs (Oxford Knee Score, EQ-5D-5L, and Forgotten Joint Score) and satisfaction with the surgery on a 0-100 scale (100 = not satisfied; 0 = very satisfied) were sent to digitally secured mailboxes. Time from revision to data collection was a median 3.1 years (range, 1.4-4.4 years).

RESULTS

Median Oxford Knee Score was 25 (interquartile range [IQR] 15) versus 31 (IQR 18) 1-3 years after revisions for unexplained pain versus aseptic loosening, P = .009. Median EQ-5D-5L was 0.6 (IQR 0.4) versus 0.8 (IQR 0.3) for unexplained pain versus aseptic loosening, P = .009. Median Forgotten Joint Score was 50 (IQR 7) versus 50 (IQR 16) for unexplained pain versus aseptic loosening, P = .905. Satisfaction was 75 (IQR 38) for unexplained pain and 50 (IQR 73) for aseptic loosening, P < .001.

CONCLUSION

Patients undergoing TKA revision for the indication of unexplained pain had worse results on PROMs than those revised for aseptic loosening. Likewise, patients revised for unexplained pain were less satisfied compared to patients revised for aseptic loosening. This information is valuable to both surgeons and patients when candidates for revision surgery are selected, to obtain the best possible outcomes.

Preliminary outcomes following revision total knee arthroplasty using a new fixed-bearing revision knee system in Asians: a mean of 3-year follow-up

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to investigate the early outcomes of the new semi-constrained revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) system by performing subgroup analysis according to the revision cause.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From August 2019 to July 2020, 83 revision TKAs using the fixed-bearing Attune® revision knee system with a minimum follow-up of 2 years were retrospectively reviewed. Clinically, the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacement, the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, and range of motion (ROM) were evaluated. The incidence of systemic and specific postoperative complications was investigated. Each cohort was divided into septic (group A, 34 patients) and aseptic mode (group B, 41 patients), and compared to assess the outcomes.

RESULTS

The mean age at the time of revision was 73.3 years (range 59.0 to 84.0 years), and the follow-up duration was 36.1 months (range 30.0 to 40.0 months). Clinical outcomes and ROM significantly improved at last follow-up (p < 0.001). Group A showed statistically inferior clinical outcomes in the last follow-up compared to group B. Four knees (5.3%) had a postoperative femoral joint line elevation of more than 5 mm. There were no serious systemic complications. One patient underwent re-revision TKA due to recurrence of infection. No stem tip impingement or cortical erosion was observed in all patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Revision TKAs using a new semi-constrained revision system showed favorable short-term follow-up outcomes, with improvement in clinical scores and ROM. Moreover, by using stem offsets, no postoperative stem tip impingement or cortical erosion was found.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, Retrospective Case Series.

Similar kinematic patterns between revision total stabilized (TS) and primary posterior stabilized (PS) knee prostheses: a prospective case-controlled study with gait assessment

PURPOSE

There are increased surgical considerations when revising total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in active patients. Few studies have assessed if a semi-constrained [Total Stabilized (TS)] prostheses has similar knee biomechanics to a primary posterior stabilized (PS) prosthesis. The aim was to compare the gait parameters in patients with PS or TS TKA and normal controls.

METHODS

32 patients with TKA were prospectively included with either a primary PS (n = 15) or a revision TS (n = 17) prosthesis. Gait analysis was performed at 6 months postoperatively for each patient, with an optoelectronic knee assessment device (KneeKG®) assessing the displacement of the tibia relative to the femur during the different gait phases (flexion/extension, anterior/posterior translation, adduction/abduction, internal/external rotation). A control group (n = 12) of healthy knees was compared with the TKA groups.

RESULTS

There were no significant kinematic differences between PS and TS groups. The maximum knee flexion during gait was 53° ± 8.1° in the PS group vs 52° ± 8.7° in the TS group. The antero-posterior translation was similar in both group (2.3 ± 0.5 mm vs 2.6 ± 0.9 mm, respectively). Peak varus angle during loading and swing phase was slightly higher in the TS group (2.7° ± 0.7° and 5.2° ± 0.9°) than in the PS group (2.9° ± 0.6° and 5.6° ± 1.2°), without significant difference. The ranges in internal/external rotation were similar between PS and TS TKA (3.7° ± 0.5° vs 3.3° ± 0.6°, respectively). Both designs approached closely the normal gait patterns of the control group except in the frontal plane.

CONCLUSION

Single radius TS TKA has gait parameters similar to single radius PS TKA. Use of a single radius TS TKA in revision TKA is not detrimental to a patient's gait pattern. Both designs approached closely the normal gait patterns of the control group.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prospective, case-control study; Level III.

Clinical Outcomes Following Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty: Minimum 2-Year Follow-up

Backgroud

The longer-term outcomes of revision total knee arthroplasty are not well described in the current literature. Managing patient expectations of revision total knee arthroplasty can be challenging for orthopedic surgeons due to a paucity of data to guide decision-making. We present outcomes of revision total knee arthroplasty performed by a single surgeon over a 12-year period from 2004 through 2015.

Methods

A retrospective review of hospital and private medical records demonstrated 202 revision total knee arthroplasties performed by the senior author in 178 patients from 2004 through 2015. Of these, 153 patients were available for assessment. Patients were contacted and invited to participate in a structured telephone interview to assess Oxford Knee Score (OKS) and patient satisfaction. All patients received the PFC (Depuy) prosthesis at a single institution and were followed up for minimum 2 years postoperatively at the time of review. Retrospective chart review was used to obtain other data for analysis including patient demographics, preoperative and postoperative range of motion (ROM), and intraoperative details.

Results

This cohort demonstrated a 93.5% survival rate and an 85% satisfaction rate at a mean of 6.5 years postoperatively. Mean ROM improved from 100° (range, 5°–145°) to 112° (range, 35°–135°) (p < 0.001). The mean OKS was 39.25 (range, 14–48). The factors associated with improved postoperative outcomes included male gender, fewer previous revision total knee arthroplasty procedures, increased preoperative ROM, and receiving a less constrained implant.

Conclusions

This study provides a comprehensive description of outcomes following revision total knee arthroplasty in a large patient cohort with a long follow-up. Although revision total knee arthroplasty is a challenging and complex aspect of arthroplasty surgery, high patient satisfaction and good functional outcomes can be achieved for the majority of patients.

Pain associated with cemented and uncemented long-stemmed tibial components in revision total knee arthroplasty

AIMS

Stemmed tibial components are frequently used in revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The purpose of this study was to evaluate patient satisfaction, overall pain, and diaphyseal tibial pain in patients who underwent revision TKA with cemented or uncemented stemmed tibial components.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study involving 110 patients with revision TKA with cemented versus uncemented stemmed tibial components. Patients who underwent revision TKA with stemmed tibial components over a 15-year period at a single institution with at least two-year follow-up were assessed. Pain was evaluated through postal surveys. There were 63 patients with cemented tibial stems and 47 with uncemented stems. Radiographs and Knee Society Scores were used to evaluate for objective findings associated with pain or patient dissatisfaction. Postal surveys were analyzed using Fisher's exact test and the independent-samples t-test. Logistic regression was used to adjust for age, sex, and preoperative bone loss.

RESULTS

No statistically significant differences in stem length, operative side, or indications for revision were found between the two cohorts. Tibial pain at the end of the stem was present in 25.3% (16/63) of cemented stems and 25.5% (12/47) of uncemented stems (p = 1.000); 74.6% (47/63) of cemented patients and 78.7% (37/47) of uncemented patients were satisfied following revision TKA (p = 0.657).

CONCLUSION

There were no differences in patient satisfaction, overall pain, and diaphyseal tibial pain in cemented and uncemented stemmed tibial components in revision TKA. Patient factors, rather than implant selection and surgical technique, likely play a large role in the presence of postoperative pain. Stemmed tibial components have been shown to be a possible source of pain in revision TKA. There is no difference in patient satisfaction or postoperative pain with cemented or uncemented stemmed tibial components in revision TKA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(6 Supple A):165-170.

Difficult primary total knee arthroplasty requiring a varus-valgus constrained implant is at higher risk of periprosthetic infection

PURPOSE

The goal of this study was to compare the risk of periprosthetic infection of a consecutive cohort of primary varus-valgus constrained (VVC) total knee arthroplasties (TKAs), with a matched 1:1 cohort of primary posterior-stabilized (PS) TKAs.

METHODS

74 primary VVC TKAs performed in 66 patients were identified and matched 1:1 with a cohort of 74 primary PS TKAs performed in 73 patients. At last follow up, patients were clinically evaluated using the Knee Society Score (KSS). Kaplan-Meier survival curves were generated to analyze survivorship using as endpoints revision for any reason, revision for periprosthetic infection and revision for mechanical failure after excluding periprosthetic infection. A multivariate logistic regression analysis was constructed to determine whether revision surgery for periprosthetic infection was influenced by patients' gender, age, surgical time and reasons for TKA (primary vs secondary osteoarthritis).

RESULTS

Demographic data were not significantly different between the two groups as regard patients' age, gender, body mass index, Charlson Comorbidity Index, reasons for replacement, and length of follow-up. Surgical time was greater in the VVC group (95.7 ± 22.5 min vs 88.6 ± 17.1 min, respectively, p = 0.032). Postoperative KSS, range of motion and radiographic data did not differ significantly between the two groups. Overall revision rate and revision rate for mechanical failure after 5 years of follow-up was not statistically different between the two groups. Considering only the revision rate due to periprosthetic infection, the risk was higher in patients with primary VVC implants (p = 0.013). The surgical time was the only factor that significantly affected the risk of revision for periprosthetic infection (OR 1.0636, CI 95% 1.0209-1.1081, p = 0.0032), whereas patients' gender, age and reason for TKA had no influence.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients and surgeons should be aware of the higher risk of periprosthetic knee infection using a VVC prosthesis. However, the present study supports the use of VVC implants in cases of difficult knee replacements, since comparable clinical outcomes and overall revision rate was found after at least 5 years of follow up.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Retrospective cohort study, Level III.

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (Pain, Function, and Quality of Life) After Aseptic Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Despite the growing frequency of revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA), there is limited information regarding patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) after that procedure. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine (1) PROM improvements in pain, function, quality of life (QOL), and global health and (2) predictors of PROMs for patients undergoing aseptic rTKA as determined using a multilevel model with patients nested within surgeons.

METHODS

A prospective cohort of 246 patients who underwent aseptic rTKA from January 2016 to December 2017 and had baseline and 1-year postoperative PROMs were analyzed. The most common surgical indications were aseptic loosening (n = 109), instability (n = 73), and implant failure (n = 64). The PROMs included in this study were the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS)-Pain, -Physical Function Short Form (PS), and -Quality of Life (QOL) as well as the Veterans Rand-12 (VR-12) Physical Component Summary (PCS) and Mental Component Summary (MCS). Multivariable linear regression models with patients nested within surgeons were constructed for predicting change in PROMs from baseline to 1 year.

RESULTS

The mean 1-year postoperative improvements in the KOOS-Pain and PS PROMs were 30.3 and 19.15 points, respectively, for the overall rTKA series. Improvement in the KOOS-Pain was associated with older age, baseline arthrofibrosis, lower baseline pain, and non-Medicare/Medicaid insurance and worsening of the scores was associated with multiple prior surgical procedures and instability. Improvement in the KOOS-PS was associated with baseline arthrofibrosis and female sex and worsening was associated with limited baseline function, an instability diagnosis, multiple prior surgical procedures, and increased hospital length of stay (LOS). Overall, the mean KOOS-QOL improved by 29.7 points. Although the mean VR-12 PCS improved, 54.9% of the patients saw no clinical improvement. Additionally, only 31.3% of the patients reported improvements in the VR-12 MCS. A multilevel mixed-effects model with patients/operations nested within surgeons demonstrated that the differences in the surgeons' results were minimal and explained only ∼1.86%, ∼1.12%, and ∼1.65% of the KOOS-Pain, KOOS-PS, and KOOS-QOL variance that was not explained by other predictors, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, patients undergoing aseptic rTKA had improvements in pain, function, and QOL PROMs at 1 year. Although overall QOL improved, other global-health PROMs remained unchanged. The associations highlighted in this study can help guide the preoperative clinical decision-making process by setting expectations before aseptic rTKA.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Gender and Preoperative Function Predict Physical Activity Levels After Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

The incidence of revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is projected to increase 6-fold worldwide by 2030. As the number of younger, physically active revision TKA patients increases in future, understanding factors influencing postoperative function will be increasingly important to help counsel patients. The primary aim of this study was to examine factors influencing return to physical activity following revision TKA.

METHODS

Patients who had undergone tibiofemoral revision between 2003 and 2013 at a single UK teaching hospital were retrospectively identified from a prospectively collected arthroplasty database. Preoperative activity level (University of California, Los Angeles [UCLA] score), patient demographics, indication, implant used, and Oxford Knee Scores (OKSs) were recorded in the database. At a mean follow-up of 3.9 years (standard deviation, 2.2), UCLA score, OKS, EuroQol-5 Dimension Score (EQ-5D), satisfaction, complications, and WORQ scores (Work, Osteoarthritis and Joint-Replacement Questionnaire) were sampled via postal questionnaire. Patient experience of complications and related surgery was also identified from healthcare records. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Responses were received from 112 revision TKAs (112 patients; mean age, 71 years). Mean UCLA activity scores improved from preoperative levels (P < .001): activity levels improved in 47% of patients with 58% engaging in moderate or more intensive activities (UCLA score ≥5). Postoperative activity level was independently predicted by male gender (P = .042) and preoperative UCLA score (P < .001). Increasing social deprivation was associated with inferior UCLA (P = .005), EQ-5D (P < .005), and OKS (P = .006) scores. Indication, implant type, and patient body mass index did not affect functional outcome or satisfaction (P > .05). Patients <65 years old were more likely to be dissatisfied (P = .009), and patients aged ≤55 years were more likely to report difficulties with WORQ criteria (P < .05).

CONCLUSION

Although 90% of patients maintain activity levels following revision TKA, less than half increase levels and this is predicted by male sex and pre-revision activity level.

Quantification of arthritic bone degradation by analysis of 3D micro-computed tomography data

The use of animal models of arthritis is a key component in the evaluation of therapeutic strategies against the human disease rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Here we present quantitative measurements of bone degradation characterised by the cortical bone profile using glucose-6-phosphate isomerase (G6PI) induced arthritis. We applied micro-computed tomography (μCT) during three arthritis experiments and one control experiment to image the metatarsals of the hind paws and to investigate the effect of experimental arthritis on their cortical bone profile. For measurements of the cortical profile we automatically identified slices that are orthogonal to individual metatarsals, thereby making the measurements independent of animal placement in the scanner. We measured the average cortical thickness index (CTI) of the metatarsals, as well as the thickness changes along the metatarsal. In this study we introduced the cortical thickness gradient (CTG) as a new measure and we investigated how arthritis affects this measure. We found that in general both CTI and CTG are able to quantify arthritic progression, whilst CTG was found to be the more sensitive measure.

Outcomes of Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty After Aseptic Revision to Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Comparative Study of 768 TKAs and 578 UKAs Revised to TKAs from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register (1994 to 2011)

BACKGROUND

The general recommendation for a failed primary unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is revision to a total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The purpose of the present study was to compare the outcomes, intraoperative data, and mode of failure of primary UKAs and primary TKAs revised to TKAs.

METHODS

The study was based on 768 failed primary TKAs revised to TKAs (TKA→TKA) and 578 failed primary UKAs revised to TKAs (UKA→TKA) reported to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register between 1994 and 2011. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) including the EuroQol EQ-5D, the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), and visual analog scales assessing satisfaction and pain were used. We performed Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses adjusting for propensity score to assess the survival rate and the risk of re-revision and multiple linear regression analyses to estimate the differences between the two groups in mean PROM scores.

RESULTS

Overall, 12% in the UKA→TKA group and 13% in the TKA→TKA group underwent re-revision between 1994 and 2011. The ten-year survival percentage of UKA→TKA versus TKA→TKA was 82% versus 81%, respectively (p = 0.63). There was no difference in the overall risk of re-revision for UKA→TKA versus TKA→TKA (relative risk [RR] = 1.2; p = 0.19), or in the PROM scores. However, the risk of re-revision was two times higher for TKA→TKA patients who were greater than seventy years of age at the time of revision (RR = 2.1; p = 0.05). A loose tibial component (28% versus 17%), pain alone (22% versus 12%), instability (19% versus 19%), and deep infection (16% versus 31%) were major causes of re-revision for UKA→TKA versus TKA→TKA, respectively, but the observed differences were not significant, with the exception of deep infection, which was significantly greater in the TKA→TKA group (RR = 2.2; p = 0.03). The surgical procedure of TKA→TKA took a longer time (mean of 150 versus 114 minutes) and more of the procedures required stems (58% versus 19%) and stabilization (27% versus 9%) compared with UKA→TKA.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite TKA→TKA seeming to be a technically more difficult surgical procedure, with a higher percentage of re-revisions due to deep infection compared with UKA→TKA, the overall outcomes of UKA→TKA and TKA→TKA were similar.

Metaphyseal Sleeves for Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty: Good Short-Term Outcomes

Metaphyseal sleeve prostheses have shown promising results in the management of bone defects at revision TKA. We present a study of their use in aseptic revision TKA. Thirty-five revisions were included in 34 patients with wear or aseptic loosening indicated in 71% of cases. The majority of cases (63%) were AORI grade 2 or greater on the tibia or femur. Knee Society scores were excellent or good in 83% of patients with the same percentage having no or only mild pain. One patient suffered a sleeve-related complication with femoral condylar fractures three years postoperatively; these united with good outcomes. All radiographs were satisfactory; no patient required a further revision. We report good outcomes with the use of metaphyseal sleeves in revision TKA.

Patient reported outcome measures after revision of the infected TKR: comparison of single versus two-stage revision

PURPOSE

Two-stage revision is the 'gold standard' treatment for infected total knee replacement. Single-stage revision has been successful in the hip and, in carefully chosen knee revisions, may offer the advantage of a single surgical insult with improved functional outcome.

METHODS

Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) for 33 single- and 89 two-stage revisions performed for infection were analysed in combination with data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. Outcomes including the Oxford Knee Score (OKS), Euroqol-5D (EQ5D) and patient satisfaction were examined with the aim of investigating the following questions: does single- or two-stage revision for infection result in (1) better knee function; (2) better overall perception of health status; (3) better patient perceived success and satisfaction?

RESULTS

No statistical difference was found between the groups for any reported outcome measure. Mean OKS following surgery was 24.9 (95 %CI, 20.5-29.4) for single- and 22.8 (95 %CI, 20.2-25.4) for two-stage (n.s.). Mean EQ5D index following surgery was 0.495 (95 %CI, 0.357-0.632) for single and 0.473 (95 %CI, 0.397-0.548) for two-stage (n.s.). Patients reporting Excellent/Very good/Good satisfaction were similar between the groups (single = 61 % vs. two stage = 57 %, (n.s.)). In total, 66 % single- and 60 % two-stage operations were rated 'successful' (n.s.).

CONCLUSIONS

This study found no demonstrable benefit of single-stage compared to two-stage revision for the infected total knee replacement using a variety of PROMs. Thus, we recommend that decision making must be based on other factors such as re-infection rate.

The importance of perceived helplessness and emotional health in understanding the relationship among pain, function, and satisfaction following revision knee replacement surgery

OBJECTIVE

Little is known about the relationships among pain, function, psychological variables like perceived helplessness and emotional health, and patient satisfaction in people with revision knee replacement surgery. We hypothesized that pain and function would have a direct association with satisfaction as well as an indirect association through patient perceptions of helplessness and emotional health.

DESIGN

This longitudinal study included 145 participants undergoing revision knee replacement surgery. Demographic data and expectation of benefit from surgery were recorded prior to surgery. The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), the Arthritis Helplessness Scale (AHS) and the Mental Component Scale (MCS) of the SF-36 (emotional health) were collected prior to and 2 years post-surgery. Satisfaction was recorded 2 years post-surgery. Regression analyses were conducted to test for mediation effects of helplessness and MCS.

RESULTS

Participants were on average 69 years old and 54% were women. Participants were satisfied with the results of the surgery (mean ± standard deviation (SD) = 70.42 ± 31.46). Less pain and functional disability were associated with increased patient satisfaction and, the effect of pain or function was also mediated through helplessness whereby more pain and disability were associated with perceptions of helplessness and helplessness was associated with lower satisfaction. MCS did not mediate the relationship of pain and function with satisfaction.

CONCLUSION

Helplessness plays an important role in understanding patient satisfaction. Interventions aimed at improving patient outcome should target not only pain and function but also should address strategies to support people in managing following knee revision surgery to maximize satisfaction with outcome.

Reason for revision influences early patient outcomes after aseptic knee revision

BACKGROUND

Revision TKA less consistently produces improvements in clinical function and quality of life when compared with primary TKA. The reasons for this difference are unclear.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

We determined differences in patient-reported outcomes and rates of satisfaction between primary and revision TKAs, and determine whether the reason for revision influences patient-reported outcomes after revision TKA.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed prospectively collected patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for 24,190 patients (23,393 TKAs; 797 aseptic revision TKAs). We compared patient-reported outcomes using the Oxford Knee Score (OKS), EuroQol (EQ-5D), and patient satisfaction between primary TKA and revision TKA, and for subsets of the revision TKA cohort. The followup data were collected between 6 and 12 months (7 months average) postoperatively.

RESULTS

Improvements in the OKS (10) and EQ-5D (0.231) were smaller after revision when compared with primary TKA (OKS, 15; EQ-5D, 0.303). Patients who had revision TKA were less satisfied (66% versus 83%). Revisions for aseptic loosening or lysis were associated with the best patient outcomes (OKS improvement = 11; EQ-5D improvement = 0.232; satisfaction = 72%). Revisions for stiffness had the worst results (OKS improvement = 6; EQ-5D improvement = 0.176; satisfaction = 47%).

CONCLUSIONS

The early improvements in knee function and general health after revision TKA are only 69% to 76% of those observed for primary TKA. Levels of patient-reported knee function, general health, and satisfaction after revision are varied and related to the reason for revision. Even the best revision group does not approach the levels of function and satisfaction observed after primary TKA at a mean of 7 months postoperatively. Longer-term followup would be required to determine whether conclusions from these early data will need to be modified.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

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