Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

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.2025.04.085DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

first-time rtka
16
lower survivorship
12
compared first-time
12
re-rtka cohort
12
cohort versus
12
all-cause revision
12
survivorship free
12
versus
9
revision total
8
total knee
8

Similar Publications

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 PDF

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 PDF

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.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

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.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

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