Orthopaedic Surgery (Feb 2020)

Observational Study of Total Knee Arthroplasty in Aseptic Revision Surgery: Clinical Results

  • Gabriel Oliver,
  • Luis Jaldin,
  • Eric Camprubí,
  • Guillermo Cortés

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/os.12593
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 12, no. 1
pp. 177 – 183

Abstract

Read online

Objective To review the long‐term clinical results after revision surgery and the relationship between the different clinical variables involved with a failed total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and its evolution to provide a better understanding of the current treatment methods. Methods The present study involved 89 subjects with a failed knee arthroplasty that ended up requiring revision surgery and component replacement between 2011 and 2015. The study included patients with pain remaining after TKA and indication from the knee unit surgeon to review the implant, without presenting with thromboembolic or neurological changes that could bias the results. The demographic data, surgical information, type of implant, and causes of failure were analyzed. The patients subjected to replacement surgery were specifically asked to fill out clinical and satisfaction questionnaires (Lysholm and KOOS). The mean follow‐up was 5.6 years (range, 3–11 years) and the analysis was divided into early revision (5 years). The R statistical package version 3.2.5 for Windows was used, with significance less than 0.05 Cohort observational study. Results The results indicated that implant revisions accounted for 5.57% of total primary implants, with a mean survival of 6 years for primary prosthesis failure. The mean revision surgery result on the Lysholm knee scoring scale was 68.73 out of 100 points. A better score was obtained for revisions undertaken on TKA with over 5 years' survival and there were no significant differences in terms of the type of implant used. The causes of TKA failure were aseptic loosening (77.38%), instability (9.52%), and painful prosthesis (13.10%). The results were statistically significant when isolated revisions were performed on one component. Rating worse on most of the questionnaire subscales. Conclusion The clinical results were better in primary implant replacements with at least 5 years' survival. The replacement of only one of the components (tibial or femoral) provided worse clinical results than total replacement.

Keywords