Clinical Outcomes of Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty among Different Etiologies and Treated with a Condylar Constrained Knee Implant Supported with Cones

Can blood flow restriction therapy improve quality of life and function in dissatisfied knee arthroplasty patients?

AIMS

Approximately 10% to 20% of knee arthroplasty patients are not satisfied with the result, while a clear indication for revision surgery might not be present. Therapeutic options for these patients, who often lack adequate quadriceps strength, are limited. Therefore, the primary aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical effect of a novel rehabilitation protocol that combines low-load resistance training (LL-RT) with blood flow restriction (BFR).

METHODS

Between May 2022 and March 2024, we enrolled 45 dissatisfied knee arthroplasty patients who lacked any clear indication for revision to this prospective cohort study. All patients were at least six months post-surgery and had undergone conventional physiotherapy previously. The patients participated in a supervised LL-RT combined with BFR in 18 sessions. Primary assessments included the following patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs): Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS); Knee Society Score: satisfaction (KSSs); the EuroQol five-dimension five-level questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L); and the pain catastrophizing scale (PCS). Functionality was assessed using the six-minute walk Test (6MWT) and the 30-second chair stand test (30CST). Follow-up timepoints were at baseline, six weeks, three months, and six months after the start.

RESULTS

Six weeks of BFR with LL-RT improved all the PROMs except the sports subscale of the KOOS compared to baseline. Highest improvements after six weeks were found for quality of life (QoL) (mean 28.2 (SD 17.2) vs 19 (SD 14.7); p = 0.002), activities of daily living (mean 54.7 (SD 18.7) vs 42.9 (SD 17.3); p < 0.001), and KSSs (mean 17.1 (SD 8.8) vs 12.8 (SD 6.7); p < 0.001). PROMs improvements continued to be present at three-month and six-month follow-up compared to baseline. However, no significant differences were observed in the paired comparisons of the six-week, three-month, and six-month follow-up. The same trends are observed for the 6MWT and 30CST.

CONCLUSION

The reported regime demonstrates improved QoL and function of dissatisfied knee arthroplasty patients. In light of this, the pathway described may provide a valuable and safe treatment option for dissatisfied knee arthroplasty patients for whom therapeutic options are limited.

Isolated aseptic loosening in total knee arthroplasty: a comprehensive 10-year review of partial vs. total component revisions

BACKGROUND

In total knee arthroplasty (TKA), isolated aseptic loosening (IAL) requires the replacement of prosthetic components, with ongoing debate regarding the effectiveness of partial component revision (PCR) compared to total component revision (TCR). This study aims to compare implant survival and surgical outcomes between PCR and TCR in the context of IAL.

METHODS

This retrospective study analyzed data from 285 patients who underwent revision TKA for IAL between January 2000 and December 2013. After applying exclusion criteria, 112 patients were included in the analysis-60 undergoing TCR and 52 undergoing PCR.

RESULTS

PCR was associated with shorter operative times and hospital stays compared to TCR, alongside significant differences in the choice of revision prostheses. Although the prosthesis failure rates were comparable between the groups (13.6% for TCR and 18.33% for PCR), significant risk factors for failure were identified, including a canal filling ratio (CFR) below 0.8 and a discrepancy over 0.2 between CFR views. However, no significant differences in overall survivorship were observed between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Both PCR and TCR provide similar survival rates and clinical outcomes for managing IAL in TKA. PCR provides advantages in terms of surgical efficiency and patient recovery, while reducing the need for more constrained prosthetic solutions. The study identifies CFR as a critical predictor of prosthesis failure, highlighting the importance of detailed preoperative planning and implant selection. These findings contribute valuable insights for improving revision strategies in IAL, enhancing surgical outcomes in TKA.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

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.