Can Revision TKA Patients Achieve Similar Clinical Functional Improvement Compared to Primaries?

Global mapping of institutional and hospital-based (Level II-IV) arthroplasty registries: a scoping review

PURPOSE

Four joint arthroplasty registries (JARs) levels exist based on the recorded data type. Level I JARs are national registries that record primary data. Hospital or institutional JARs (Level II-IV) document further data (patient-reported outcomes, demographic, radiographic). A worldwide list of Level II-IV JARs must be created to effectively assess and categorize these data.

METHODS

Our study is a systematic scoping review that followed the PRISMA guidelines and included 648 studies. Based on their publications, the study aimed to map the existing Level II-IV JARs worldwide. The secondary aim was to record their lifetime, publications' number and frequency and recognise differences with national JARs.

RESULTS

One hundred five Level II-IV JARs were identified. Forty-eight hospital-based, 45 institutional, and 12 regional JARs. Fifty JARs were found in America, 39 in Europe, nine in Asia, six in Oceania and one in Africa. They have published 485 cohorts, 91 case-series, 49 case-control, nine cross-sectional studies, eight registry protocols and six randomized trials. Most cohort studies were retrospective. Twenty-three per cent of papers studied patient-reported outcomes, 21.45% surgical complications, 13.73% postoperative clinical and 5.25% radiographic outcomes, and 11.88% were survival analyses. Forty-four JARs have published only one paper. Level I JARs primarily publish implant revision risk annual reports, while Level IV JARs collect comprehensive data to conduct retrospective cohort studies.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first study mapping all Level II-IV JARs worldwide. Most JARs are found in Europe and America, reporting on retrospective cohorts, but only a few report on studies systematically.

Contemporary outcomes of tibial tubercle osteotomy for revision total knee arthroplasty

Aims

Tibial tubercle osteotomy (TTO) facilitates surgical exposure and protects the extensor mechanism during revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA). The purpose of this study was to determine the rates of bony union, complications, and reoperations following TTO during rTKA, to assess the functional outcomes of rTKA with TTO at two years' minimum follow-up, and to identify the risk factors of failure.

Methods

Between January 2010 and September 2020, 695 rTKAs were performed and data were entered into a prospective database. Inclusion criteria were rTKAs with concomitant TTO, without extensor mechanism allograft, and a minimum of two years' follow-up. A total of 135 rTKAs were included, with a mean age of 65 years (SD 9.0) and a mean BMI of 29.8 kg/m2 (SD 5.7). The most frequent indications for revision were infection (50%; 68/135), aseptic loosening (25%; 34/135), and stiffness (13%; 18/135). Patients had standardized follow-up at six weeks, three months, six months, and annually thereafter. Complications and revisions were evaluated at the last follow-up. Functional outcomes were assessed using the Knee Society Score (KSS) and range of motion.

Results

The mean follow-up was 51 months (SD 26; 24 to 121). Bony union was confirmed in 95% of patients (128/135) at a mean of 3.4 months (SD 2.7). The complication rate was 15% (20/135), consisting of nine tibial tubercle fracture displacements (6.7%), seven nonunions (5%), two delayed unions, one tibial fracture, and one wound dehiscence. Seven patients (5%) required eight revision procedures (6%): three bone grafts, three osteosyntheses, one extensor mechanism allograft, and one wound revision. The functional scores and flexion were significantly improved after surgery: mean KSS knee, 48.8 (SD 17) vs 79.6 (SD 20; p < 0.001); mean KSS function, 37.6 (SD 21) vs 70.2 (SD 30; p < 0.001); mean flexion, 81.5° (SD 33°) vs 93° (SD 29°; p = 0.004). Overall, 98% of patients (n = 132) had no extension deficit. The use of hinge implants was a significant risk factor for tibial tubercle fracture (p = 0.011).

Conclusion

TTO during rTKA was an efficient procedure to improve knee exposure with a high union rate, but had significant specific complications. Functional outcomes were improved at mid term.

Patient-relevant outcomes following elective, aseptic revision knee arthroplasty: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The aim of this systematic review was to summarise the evidence for the clinical effectiveness of revision knee arthroplasty (rKA) compared to non-operative treatment for the management of patients with elective, aseptic causes for a failed knee arthroplasty.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, AMED and PsychINFO were searched from inception to 1st December 2020 for studies on patients considering elective, aseptic rKA. Patient-relevant outcomes (PROs) were defined as implant survivorship, joint function, quality of life (QoL), complications and hospital admission impact.

RESULTS

No studies compared elective, aseptic rKA to non-operative management. Forty uncontrolled studies reported on PROs following elective, aseptic rKA (434434 rKA). Pooled estimates for implant survivorship were: 95.5% (95% CI 93.2-97.7%) at 1 year [seven studies (5524 rKA)], 90.8% (95% CI 87.6-94.0%) at 5 years [13 studies (5754 rKA)], 87.4% (95% CI 81.7-93.1%) at 10 years [nine studies (2188 rKA)], and 83.2% (95% CI 76.7-89.7%) at 15 years [two studies (452 rKA)]. Twelve studies (2382 rKA) reported joint function and/or QoL: all found large improvements from baseline to follow-up. Mortality rates were low (0.16% to 2% within 1 year) [four studies (353064 rKA)]. Post-operative complications were common (9.1 to 37.2% at 90 days).

CONCLUSION

Higher-quality evidence is needed to support patients with decision-making in elective, aseptic rKA. This should include studies comparing operative and non-operative management. Implant survivorship following elective, aseptic rKA was ~ 96% at 1 year, ~ 91% at 5 years and ~ 87% at 10 years. Early complications were common after elective, aseptic rKA and the rates summarised here can be shared with patients during informed consent.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42020196922.

Aseptic revision total knee arthroplasty outcomes were equivalent to patients' own pre-failure state but inferior to patients without revision

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to (1) longitudinally compare the patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) of the same patients who underwent primary TKA and revision TKA, and (2) compared the results of these revision TKA with a matched cohort of well-functioning primary TKA. The hypothesis was revision TKA could result in equivalent outcomes to patients' own primary TKA or the primary TKA of patients who did not require revision.

METHODS

Prospectively collected data of 123 patients who underwent primary TKA and subsequently aseptic revision TKA ("revised group"), were matched using nearest-neighbor method to 123 well-functioning primary TKA that did not require revision ("control group"). Preoperative (prior to primary TKA), at time of failure (prior to revision TKA), postoperative 6-month and 2-year PROMs included Knee Society scores (KSS), Oxford Knee Score (OKS) and Short Form-36 (SF-36). Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) attainment was analyzed. Wilcoxon and McNemar's tests were used to compare outcomes within the revised group (primary vs revision), Mann-Whitney U test and Chi-Square test for the revised and control groups.

RESULTS

The revised group had poorer KSS objective (p = 0.045), KSS functional (p < 0.001), OKS (p = 0.011) and SF-36 PCS (p < 0.001) at time of failure (prior to revision TKA), compared to their preoperative PROMs (prior to primary TKA). Revision TKA resulted in restoration of KSS objective, OKS and SF-36 PCS (NS) that were equivalent to their primary TKA, but poorer KSS functional (p < 0.050). Patients in the revised group had a lower proportion of MCID attainment in KSS objective (p = 0.014) and OKS (p < 0.001) at 2-year after primary TKA when compared to the control group. Revision TKA also led to poorer KSS objective, KSS functional and SF-36 PCS (p < 0.050) when compared to primary TKA of the control group.

CONCLUSION

Outcomes following aseptic revision were equivalent to patients' own pre-failure state but inferior to patients with non-revised implants. An individualized approach toward goal setting and assessing adequacy of aseptic revision TKA can be adopted based on patients' pre-failure outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Use of a Spacer Block Tool for Assessment of Joint Line Position during Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty

There is a tendency of orthopaedic surgeons to elevate joint line (JL) in revision total knee arthroplasty (RTKA). Here, we ascertain the use of the spacer block tool (SBT) to determine JL more accurately for less experienced RTKA surgeons. To perform more precise restoration of JL, an SBT with markers was developed and produced using computer software and three-dimensional printers. The study was planned prospectively to include patients who received either condylar constrained or rotating hinge RTKA between January 2016 and December 2019. To determine JL, distance from fibular head (FH), adductor tubercle (AT), and medial epicondyle (ME) were measured on contralateral knee preoperative radiographs and on operated knee postoperative radiographs. Patients were randomized and grouped according to the technique of JL reconstruction. In Group 1, conventional methods by evaluating aforementioned landmarks and preoperative contralateral knee measurements were used to determine JL, whereas in Group 2, the SBT was used. The main outcome measure was the JL change in revised knee postoperatively in contrast to contralateral knee to compare effective restoration of JL between the groups. Twenty-five patients in Group 1 (3 males, 22 females, 72 years, body mass index [BMI] 32.04 ± 4.45) and 20 patients (7 males, 13 females, 74 years, BMI 30.12 ± 5.02) in Group 2 were included in the study. JL measurements for the whole group were FH-JL = 18.3 ± 3.8 mm, AT-JL = 45.8 ± 4.6 mm, and ME-JL = 27.1 ± 2.8 mm preoperatively, and FH-JL = 20.7 ± 4.2 mm, AT-JL = 43.4 ± 5.2 mm, and ME-JL = 24.7 ± 3.1 mm postoperatively. JL level differences in reference to FH, AT, and ME in Group 1 were 3.6 ± 3.1, 3.6 ± 3.5, and 3.4 ± 3.1 mm, respectively, and in Group 2 were 1.0 ± .0.9, 1.3 ± 1.3, and 1.1 ± 1.3 mm, respectively. There were statistically significant differences between the two groups in JL changes referenced to all of the specific landmarks (p < 0.05). The use of the SBT helped restore JL effectively in our cohort of RTKA patients. Therefore, this tool may become a useful and inexpensive gadget for less experienced and low-volume RTKA surgeons.

Metaphyseal sleeves in arthroplasty of the knee : A suitable tool in management of major metaphyseal bone loss

Background

This study examined the clinical outcome following revision arthroplasty of the knee joint and severe arthrosis with metaphyseal bone defects and instability using metaphyseal sleeves. We analyzed the results based on established scores and recorded the complications occurring on revision arthroplasty.

Material and methods

Patients with revision arthroplasty of the knee and metaphyseal bone defects grade III according to the Anderson Orthopedic Research Institute (AORI) classification were included (16 patients, 9 females and 7 males). In all cases, surgery was performed using an endoprosthesis COMPLETE™ revision knee system with metaphyseal sleeves.

Results

All patients had a significant reduction in pain level after revision surgery. The median HSS score in the cohort with primary arthroplasty was 84 and in the cohort with revision arthroplasty 73 and the KSS was 83 and 55, respectively. According to the HSS an excellent result was achieved by 50% of the patients in the primary arthroplasty group and 25% in the revision group. Only three patients were considered to have an insufficient result. Postoperative pain was significantly reduced in both groups. The median ROM was 112° flexion in the primary arthroplasty group and 95° in the revision group. An extension deficit was observed in three patients and four patients showed prolonged wound healing postoperatively (25%), which was treated conservatively and did not lead to septic changes.

Conclusion

The use of metaphyseal sleeves in patients with bone defects is a suitable instrument with no negative impact on the outcome both in primary and revision arthroplasty. Further studies with larger study groups and analysis of long-term results after use of such endoprosthetic components should be conducted.