1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Impact of patient and prosthesis characteristics on common reasons for total knee replacement revision: a registry study of 36,626 revision cases from Australia, Sweden, and USA

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background and purpose

          Total knee replacement (TKR) studies usually analyze all-cause revision when considering relationships with patient and prosthesis factors. We studied how these factors impact different revision diagnoses.

          Patients and methods

          We used data from 2003 to 2019 of TKR for osteoarthritis from the arthroplasty registries of Sweden, Australia, and Kaiser Permanente, USA to study patient and prosthesis characteristics for specific revision diagnoses. There were 1,072,924 primary TKR included and 36,626 were revised. Factors studied included age, sex, prosthesis constraint, fixation method, bearing mobility, polyethylene type, and patellar component use. Revision diagnoses were arthrofibrosis, fracture, infection, instability, loosening, pain, patellar reasons, and wear. Odds ratios (ORs) for revision were estimated and summary effects were calculated using a meta-analytic approach.

          Results

          We found between-registry consistency in 15 factor/reason analyses. Risk factors for revision for arthrofibrosis were age < 65 years (OR 2.0; 95% CI 1.4–2.7) and mobile bearing designs (MB) (OR 1.7; CI 1.1–2.5), for fracture were female sex (OR 3.2; CI 2.2–4.8), age ≥ 65 years (OR 2.8; CI 1.9–4) and posterior stabilized prostheses (PS) (OR 2.1; CI 1.3–3.5), for infection were male sex (OR 1.9; CI 1.7–2.0) and PS (OR 1.5; CI 1.2–1.8), for instability were age < 65 years (OR 1.5; CI 1.3–1.8) and MB (OR 1.5; CI 1.1–2.2), for loosening were PS (OR 1.5; CI 1.4–1.6), MB (OR 2.2; CI 1.6–3.0) and use of ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (OR 2.3; CI 1.8–2.9), for patellar reasons were not resurfacing the patella (OR 13.6; CI 2.1–87.2) and MB (OR 2.0; CI 1.2–3.3) and for wear was cementless fixation (OR 4.9; CI 4.3–5.5).

          Interpretation

          Patients could be counselled regarding specific age and sex risks. Use of minimally stabilized, fixed bearing, cemented prostheses, and patellar components is encouraged to minimize revision risk.

          Related collections

          Most cited references42

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Predictors of persistent pain after total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

          Several studies have identified clinical, psychosocial, patient characteristic, and perioperative variables that are associated with persistent postsurgical pain; however, the relative effect of these variables has yet to be quantified. The aim of the study was to provide a systematic review and meta-analysis of predictor variables associated with persistent pain after total knee arthroplasty (TKA).
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Why are total knee arthroplasties failing today--has anything changed after 10 years?

            The purpose of this study was to determine the frequency and cause of failure after total knee arthroplasty and compare the results with those reported by our similar investigation conducted 10 years ago. A total of 781 revision TKAs performed at our institution over the past 10 years were identified. The most common failure mechanisms were: loosening (39.9%), infection (27.4%), instability (7.5%), periprosthetic fracture (4.7%), and arthrofibrosis (4.5%). Infection was the most common failure mechanism for early revision (<2 years from primary) and aseptic loosening was the most common reason for late revision. Polyethylene (PE) wear was no longer the major cause of failure. Compared to our previous report, the percentage of revisions performed for polyethylene wear, instability, arthrofibrosis, malalignment and extensor mechanism deficiency has decreased.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Periprosthetic Osteolysis: Mechanisms, Prevention and Treatment

              Clinical studies, as well as in vitro and in vivo experiments have demonstrated that byproducts from joint replacements induce an inflammatory reaction that can result in periprosthetic osteolysis (PPOL) and aseptic loosening (AL). Particle-stimulated macrophages and other cells release cytokines, chemokines, and other pro-inflammatory substances that perpetuate chronic inflammation, induce osteoclastic bone resorption and suppress bone formation. Differentiation, maturation, activation, and survival of osteoclasts at the bone–implant interface are under the control of the receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa-Β ligand (RANKL)-dependent pathways, and the transcription factors like nuclear factor κB (NF-κB) and activator protein-1 (AP-1). Mechanical factors such as prosthetic micromotion and oscillations in fluid pressures also contribute to PPOL. The treatment for progressive PPOL is only surgical. In order to mitigate ongoing loss of host bone, a number of non-operative approaches have been proposed. However, except for the use of bisphosphonates in selected cases, none are evidence based. To date, the most successful and effective approach to preventing PPOL is usage of wear-resistant bearing couples in combination with advanced implant designs, reducing the load of metallic and polymer particles. These innovations have significantly decreased the revision rate due to AL and PPOL in the last decade.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Acta Orthop
                Acta Orthop
                ActaO
                Acta Orthopaedica
                Medical Journals Sweden, on behalf of the Nordic Orthopedic Federation
                1745-3674
                1745-3682
                05 July 2022
                2022
                : 93
                : 623-633
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry, South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute, Adelaide, South Australia
                [2 ]Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Register, Lund, Sweden
                [3 ]Department of Orthopedics, Clinical Science Lund, Faculty of Medicine, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
                [4 ]Surgical Outcomes and Analysis, Kaiser Permanente, San Diego, CA, USA
                Author notes
                Article
                ActaO-93-3512
                10.2340/17453674.2022.3512
                9275496
                35819795
                42a2f383-8426-49b7-a148-1d2df40afae4
                © 2022 The Author(s)

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material for non-commercial purposes, provided proper attribution to the original work.

                History
                : 14 April 2022
                : 13 June 2022
                Categories
                Article

                Orthopedics
                Orthopedics

                Comments

                Comment on this article