Download PDF
J Knee Surg 2021; 34(13): 1396-1401
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1735282
Special Focus Section

The Epidemiology of Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty

John M. Tarazi
1   Northwell Health Orthopaedics, Lenox Hill Hospital, New York, New York
,
Zhongming Chen 
1   Northwell Health Orthopaedics, Lenox Hill Hospital, New York, New York
,
Giles R. Scuderi
1   Northwell Health Orthopaedics, Lenox Hill Hospital, New York, New York
,
Michael A. Mont
1   Northwell Health Orthopaedics, Lenox Hill Hospital, New York, New York
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

With an expected increase in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) procedures, revision TKA (rTKA) procedures continue to be a burden on the United States health care system. The evolution of surgical techniques and prosthetic designs has, however, provided a paradigm shift in the etiology of failure mechanisms of TKA. This review can shed light on the current reasons for revision, which may lead to insights on how to improve outcomes and lower future revision risks. We will primarily focus on the epidemiology of rTKA in the present time, but we will also review this in the context of various time periods to see how the field has evolved. We will review rTKAs: 1) prior to 1997; 2) between 1997 and 2000; 3) between 2000 and 2012; and 3) in the modern era since 2012. We will further subdivide each of the sections into reasons for early (first 2 years after index procedure) versus late revisions (greater than 2 years after index procedure). In doing so, it was determined that prior to 1997, the most prevalent causes of failure were infection, patella failure, polyethylene wear, and aseptic loosening. After a major shift of failure mechanisms was described by Sharkey et al, polyethylene wear and aseptic loosening became the leading causes for revision. However, with the improved manufacturing technology and implant design, polyethylene wear was replaced with aseptic loosening and infection as the leading causes of failure between 2000 and 2012. Since that time, in the modern era of TKA, mechanical loosening and infection have taken over the most prevalent causes for failure. Hopefully, with continued developments in component design and surgical techniques, as well as increased focus on infection reduction methods, the amount of rTKA procedures will decline.

Keywords

revision total knee arthroplasty - epidemiology - TKA failure


Publication History

Received: 16 June 2021

Accepted: 22 July 2021

Article published online:
10 September 2021

© 2021. Thieme. All rights reserved.

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

 

  • References

  • 1 Singh JA, Yu S, Chen L, Cleveland JD. Rates of total joint replacement in the United States: Future projections to 2020–2040 using the national inpatient sample. J Rheumatol 2019; 46 (09) 1134-1140
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Bhandari M, Smith J, Miller LE, Block JE. Clinical and economic burden of revision knee arthroplasty. Clin Med Insights Arthritis Musculoskelet Disord 2012; 5: 89-94
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Garellick G. Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register Annual Report 2011. Swedish Hip Arthroplast Regist. 2011
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Sharkey PF, Hozack WJ, Rothman RH, Shastri S, Jacoby SM. Insall Award paper. Why are total knee arthroplasties failing today?. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2002; (Suppl. 404) 7-13
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Schroer WC, Berend KR, Lombardi AV. et al. Why are total knees failing today? Etiology of total knee revision in 2010 and 2011. J Arthroplasty 2013; 28 (8, Suppl): 116-119
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Lombardi Jr AV, Berend KR, Adams JB. Why knee replacements fail in 2013: patient, surgeon, or implant?. Bone Joint J 2014; 96-B (11, Supple A): 101-104
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Sharkey PF, Lichstein PM, Shen C, Tokarski AT, Parvizi J. Why are total knee arthroplasties failing today-has anything changed after 10 years?. J Arthroplasty 2013; 29 (09) 1774-1778
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Cameron HU, Hunter GA. Failure in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1982; (e-pub ahead of print) DOI: 10.1097/00003086-198210000-00018.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Moreland JR. Mechanisms of failure in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1988; (226) 49-64
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Feng EL, Stulberg SD, Wixson RL. Progressive subluxation and polyethylene wear in total knee replacements with flat articular surfaces. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1994; (299) 60-71
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Heck DA, Melfi CA, Mamlin LA. et al. Revision rates after knee replacement in the United States. Med Care 1998; 36 (05) 661-669
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Fehring TK, Griffin WL. Revision of failed cementless total knee implants with cement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1998; (356) 34-38
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Fehring TK, Odum S, Griffin WL, Mason JB, Nadaud M. Early failures in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2001; (392) 315-318
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Mulhall KJ, Ghomrawi HM, Scully S, Callaghan JJ, Saleh KJ. Current etiologies and modes of failure in total knee arthroplasty revision. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2006; 446: 45-50
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Pitta M, Esposito CI, Li Z, Lee YY, Wright TM, Padgett DE. Failure after modern total knee arthroplasty: a prospective study of 18,065 knees. J Arthroplasty 2018; 33 (02) 407-414
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Kasahara Y, Majima T, Kimura S, Nishiike O, Uchida J. What are the causes of revision total knee arthroplasty in Japan?. Knee Clin Orthop Relat Res 2013; 471 (05) 1533-1538
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Chakravarty R, Elmallah RDK, Cherian JJ, Kurtz SM, Mont MA. Polyethylene wear in knee arthroplasty. J Knee Surg 2015; 28 (05) 370-375
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Delanois RE, Mistry JB, Gwam CU, Mohamed NS, Choksi US, Mont MA. Current epidemiology of revision total knee arthroplasty in the United States. J Arthroplasty 2017; 32 (09) 2663-2668
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Dalury DF, Pomeroy DL, Gorab RS, Adams MJ. Why are total knee arthroplasties being revised?. J Arthroplasty 2013; 28 (8, Suppl): 120-121
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Cram P, Lu X, Kates SL, Singh JA, Li Y, Wolf BR. Total knee arthroplasty volume, utilization, and outcomes among Medicare beneficiaries, 1991-2010. JAMA 2012; 308 (12) 1227-1236
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Livshetz I, Sussman BH, Papas V. et al. Analyzing the burden of revision total knee arthroplasty in the United States between 2009 and 2016. J Knee Surg 2021; (e-pub head of print) DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1731324.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Wright J, Ewald FC, Walker PS, Thomas WH, Poss R, Sledge CB. Total knee arthroplasty with the kinematic prosthesis. Results after five to nine years: a follow-up note. J Bone Jt Surg - Ser A 1990; 72 (07) 1003-1009
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Gioe TJ, Stroemer ES, Santos ERG. All-polyethylene and metal-backed tibias have similar outcomes at 10 years: a randomized level I [corrected] evidence study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2007; 455: 212-218
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Parsch D, Krüger M, Moser MT, Geiger F. Follow-up of 11-16 years after modular fixed-bearing TKA. Int Orthop 2009; 33 (02) 431-435
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Kerzner B, Kunze KN, O'Sullivan MB, Pandher K, Levine BR. Temporal trends of revision etiologies in total knee arthroplasty at a single high-volume institution: an epidemiological analysis. Arthroplast Today 2021; 9: 68-72
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar