Download PDF
J Knee Surg 2020; 33(12): 1219-1224
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1693415
Original Article

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

Shikha Sachdeva
1   School of Medicine, University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky
,
James F. Baker
2   Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky
,
Jesse E. Bauwens
2   Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky
,
Langan S. Smith
3   Orthopedic Associates, KentuckyOne Health Ringgold Standard Institution, Louisville, Kentucky
,
Nipun Sodhi
4   Orthopaedic Surgery, Lenox Hill Hospital Ringgold Standard Institution, New York
,
Michael A. Mont
4   Orthopaedic Surgery, Lenox Hill Hospital Ringgold Standard Institution, New York
,
Arthur L. Malkani 
2   Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

The etiology of failure following primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) leading to revision surgery are multifactorial, including infection, instability, loosening, contracture, and wear. Although the majority of patients have successful outcomes following revision TKA, postoperative complications are still increased in these patients when compared to primary patients. For this reason, there has been a continued search to identify options, including prosthesis types, to potentially improve outcomes. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine if the clinical results achieved following revision TKA are comparatively similar to primaries using the same implant design. Specifically, we compared (1) Knee Society Functional and Range-of-Motion Knee Scores and (2) component survivorship. This was a retrospective analysis of 100 patients undergoing revision TKA due to an aseptic etiology, who were matched to a cohort of 100 patients who underwent primaries with the same prosthesis. There were no differences in the groups with respect to age at surgery, sex, and body mass index. The mean follow-up was 57 months in the revision group (range 24–105 months) and 67 months in the primary TKA group (range 55–123 months). American Knee Society Scores (KSS) and range of motion measurements recorded preoperatively and at the most recent postoperative visit were compared between both cohorts in order to compare postoperative outcomes. A p value of 0.05 was used for significance. The average improvement between the pre- and postoperative KSS function scores in both groups was similar, with both cohorts demonstrating a 28-point improvement. At 2-year follow-up, all-cause survivorship of the aseptic revision surgeries was 87%. Patients undergoing revision TKA for aseptic loosening can potentially expect similar improvements in clinical function scores and survivorship compared to primary TKA when controlling for implant type.

Keywords

revision total knee arthroplasty - survivorship - clinical outcomes - complications


Publication History

Received: 04 December 2018

Accepted: 19 May 2019

Article published online:
29 July 2019

© 2020. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 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 (08) 2244-2252
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Bozic KJ, Kurtz SM, Lau E. et al. The epidemiology of revision total knee arthroplasty in the United States. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010; 468 (01) 45-51
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Porteous AJ, Hassaballa MA, Newman JH. Does the joint line matter in revision total knee replacement?. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2008; 90 (07) 879-884
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Figgie III HE, Goldberg VM, Heiple KG, Moller III HS, Gordon NH. The influence of tibial-patellofemoral location on function of the knee in patients with the posterior stabilized condylar knee prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1986; 68 (07) 1035-1040
    Google Scholar
  • 5 Partington PF, Sawhney J, Rorabeck CH, Barrack RL, Moore J. Joint line restoration after revision total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1999; (367) 165-171
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Hamilton DF, Gaston P, Simpson AH. Single radius of curvature implant design enhances power output following total knee arthroplasty. Orthopaedic Proceedings 2012; 94-B (SUPP_XXXVI): 67
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Mistry JB, Elmallah RK, Chughtai M, Oktem M, Harwin SF, Mont MA. Long-term survivorship and clinical outcomes of a single radius total knee arthroplasty. Surg Technol Int 2016; 28: 247-251
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Gwam CU, Chughtai M, Khlopas A. et al. Short-to-midterm outcomes of revision total knee arthroplasty patients with a total stabilizer knee system. J Arthroplasty 2017; 32 (08) 2480-2483
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Lee WC, Kwan YH, Chong HC, Yeo SJ. The minimal clinically important difference for Knee Society Clinical Rating System after total knee arthroplasty for primary osteoarthritis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2017; 25 (11) 3354-3359
    Google Scholar
  • 10 Kurtz S, Mowat F, Ong K, Chan N, Lau E, Halpern M. Prevalence of primary and revision total hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 1990 through 2002. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005; 87 (07) 1487-1497
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Fehring TK, Odum S, Griffin WL, Mason JB. Outcome comparison of partial and full component revision TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2005; 440 (440) 131-134
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Nakano N, Matsumoto T, Muratsu H, Ishida K, Kuroda R, Kurosaka M. Revision total knee arthroplasty using the modern constrained condylar knee prosthesis. Acta Ortop Bras 2016; 24 (06) 304-308
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Gooding CR, Masri BA, Duncan CP, Greidanus NV, Garbuz DS. Durable infection control and function with the PROSTALAC spacer in two-stage revision for infected knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2011; 469 (04) 985-993
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Saleh KJ, Dykes DC, Tweedie RL. et al. Functional outcome after total knee arthroplasty revision: a meta-analysis. J Arthroplasty 2002; 17 (08) 967-977
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Abdel MP, Bonadurer III GF, Jennings MT, Hanssen AD. Increased aseptic tibial failures in patients with a BMI ≥35 and well-aligned total knee arthroplasties. J Arthroplasty 2015; 30 (12) 2181-2184
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Sinicrope BJ, Feher AW, Bhimani SJ. et al. Increased survivorship of cementless versus cemented TKA in the morbidly obese. A minimum 5-year follow-up. J Arthroplasty 2019; 34 (02) 309-314
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Mahoney OM, McClung CD, dela Rosa MA, Schmalzried TP. The effect of total knee arthroplasty design on extensor mechanism function. J Arthroplasty 2002; 17 (04) 416-421
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Collados-Maestre I, Lizaur-Utrilla A, Gonzalez-Navarro B. et al. Better functional outcome after single-radius TKA compared with multi-radius TKA. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2017; 25 (11) 3508-3514
    Google Scholar
  • 19 König C, Sharenkov A, Matziolis G. et al. Joint line elevation in revision TKA leads to increased patellofemoral contact forces. J Orthop Res 2010; 28 (01) 1-5
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Martin JW, Whiteside LA. The influence of joint line position on knee stability after condylar knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1990; (259) 146-156
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Hamilton DF, Simpson PM, Patton JT, Howie CR, Burnett R. Aseptic revision knee arthroplasty with total stabilizer prostheses achieves similar functional outcomes to primary total knee arthroplasty at 2 years: a longitudinal cohort study. J Arthroplasty 2017; 32 (04) 1234-1240
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar