98%
921
2 minutes
20
Background: Revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) is an increasingly common challenge for arthroplasty surgeons. Compared to first-time rTKA, re-rTKA presents additional challenges, including further compromised soft tissues and bone loss, abundant scar tissue, stemmed revision implants, and metaphyseal fixation. The goal of this study was to compare the survivorship and clinical outcomes of aseptic first-time rTKAs and re-rTKAs.
Methods: A retrospective review of aseptic rTKAs from a single institution from 2016 to 2022 identified 850 first-time rTKAs and 178 re-rTKAs. The mean age was 67 years, 58% were women, and the mean body mass index was 31. The mean operative time was longer for re-rTKAs (173 versus 160 minutes, P = 0.02), as was the hospital length of stay for the re-rTKA cohort (3.7 versus 3.2 days, P = 0.0007). Failure was defined as all-cause revision or revision for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI).
Results: At 3.5 years, re-rTKAs had significantly lower survivorship free from all-cause revision than the first-time rTKA cohort (75 versus 91%, P < 0.0001). At 1.5 years, re-rTKAs had significantly lower survivorship free from revision for PJI than the first-time rTKA cohort (93 versus 98%, P = 0.003). Overall, the re-rTKA cohort had more all-cause failures (33 [19%] versus 55 [6%]; P < 0.0001) and more PJI failures (13 [7%] versus 17 [2%]; P = 0.0001). At the final follow up, the re-rTKA cohort had a significantly lower Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacement (62 versus 69, P = 0.01).
Conclusions: Compared to first-time rTKA, re-rTKA has significantly decreased survivorship free from all-cause revision at 3.5 years (58 versus 43%) and revision for PJI at 2 years (91 versus 98%). Optimization of care for rTKA patients at centers of excellence may improve the outcomes and care of these complex patients.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2025.04.085 | DOI Listing |
J Arthroplasty
September 2025
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, New York.
Background: Revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) is an increasingly common challenge for arthroplasty surgeons. Compared to first-time rTKA, re-rTKA presents additional challenges, including further compromised soft tissues and bone loss, abundant scar tissue, stemmed revision implants, and metaphyseal fixation. The goal of this study was to compare the survivorship and clinical outcomes of aseptic first-time rTKAs and re-rTKAs.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFKnee
March 2025
Orthopedic Surgery and Traumatology, Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Distal femoral replacement (DFR) with megaprostheses is a salvage revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) procedure indicated in cases with massive bone defects in the distal femur. As long as these implants achieve fixation only in the diaphysis, the high aseptic loosening rate reported in some series is probably related to a lack of rotational stability. Two patients with extensive distal femoral bone defects with preservation of the metaphyseal-diaphyseal junction underwent rTKA.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFBone Joint J
May 2024
Institute for Complex Arthroplasty and Revisions (ICAR), IFCA Clinic, Firenze, Italy.
Aims: Obtaining solid implant fixation is crucial in revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) to avoid aseptic loosening, a major reason for re-revision. This study aims to validate a novel grading system that quantifies implant fixation across three anatomical zones (epiphysis, metaphysis, diaphysis).
Methods: Based on pre-, intra-, and postoperative assessments, the novel grading system allocates a quantitative score (0, 0.
Bone Joint J
June 2023
Nottingham Elective Orthopaedic Services, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK.
Aims: Revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) and revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) are complex procedures with higher rates of re-revision, complications, and mortality compared to primary TKA and THA. We report the effects of the establishment of a revision arthroplasty network (the East Midlands Specialist Orthopaedic Network; EMSON) on outcomes of rTKA and rTHA.
Methods: The revision arthroplasty network was established in January 2015 and covered five hospitals in the Nottinghamshire and Lincolnshire areas of the East Midlands of England.
J Arthroplasty
July 2023
Hospital for Special Surgery, Adult Reconstruction and Joint Replacement, New York, New York.
Background: Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) defines a meaningful clinical change in patient-reported outcome measures. Patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) provides a patient-reported outcome measures threshold value to indicate a satisfactory clinical state. MCID and PASS for revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) are ill-defined.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF