BILATERAL VERSUS UNILATERAL CEMENTED TOTAL KNEE REPLACEMENTS: DATA FROM THE SCOTTISH ORTHOPAEDIC PROJECT

A. Murray; I. Brenkel

doi:10.1302/0301-620X.87BSUPP_III.0870280e

Current issue

BILATERAL VERSUS UNILATERAL CEMENTED TOTAL KNEE REPLACEMENTS: DATA FROM THE SCOTTISH ORTHOPAEDIC PROJECT

A. Murray
I. Brenkel

BILATERAL VERSUS UNILATERAL CEMENTED TOTAL KNEE REPLACEMENTS: DATA FROM THE SCOTTISH ORTHOPAEDIC PROJECT

Murray A, Brenkel I. BILATERAL VERSUS UNILATERAL CEMENTED TOTAL KNEE REPLACEMENTS: DATA FROM THE SCOTTISH ORTHOPAEDIC PROJECT. Orthop Procs. 2005;87-B(SUPP_III):280-280. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.87BSUPP_III.0870280e

Murray, A., and I. Brenkel. “BILATERAL VERSUS UNILATERAL CEMENTED TOTAL KNEE REPLACEMENTS: DATA FROM THE SCOTTISH ORTHOPAEDIC PROJECT.” Orthopaedic Proceedings, vol. 87-B, no. SUPP_III, 2005, pp. 280-280., https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.87BSUPP_III.0870280e

Murray, A., & Brenkel, I. (2005). BILATERAL VERSUS UNILATERAL CEMENTED TOTAL KNEE REPLACEMENTS: DATA FROM THE SCOTTISH ORTHOPAEDIC PROJECT. Orthopaedic Proceedings, 87-B(SUPP_III), 280-280. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.87BSUPP_III.0870280e

Murray, A. and Brenkel, I. (2005) “BILATERAL VERSUS UNILATERAL CEMENTED TOTAL KNEE REPLACEMENTS: DATA FROM THE SCOTTISH ORTHOPAEDIC PROJECT.” Orthopaedic Proceedings, 87-B(SUPP_III), pp. 280-280. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.87BSUPP_III.0870280e

Murray, A., and I. Brenkel. “BILATERAL VERSUS UNILATERAL CEMENTED TOTAL KNEE REPLACEMENTS: DATA FROM THE SCOTTISH ORTHOPAEDIC PROJECT.” Orthopaedic Proceedings 87-B, no. SUPP_III (2005): 280-280. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.87BSUPP_III.0870280e

Murray A, Brenkel I. BILATERAL VERSUS UNILATERAL CEMENTED TOTAL KNEE REPLACEMENTS: DATA FROM THE SCOTTISH ORTHOPAEDIC PROJECT. Orthop Procs. 2005 Sep 1;87-B(SUPP_III):280-280. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.87BSUPP_III.0870280e

Copy to clipboard

Mendeley

BibTeX

EndNote

RIS

Abstract

Previous studies have suggested that bilateral TKR is a safe and economically advantageous procedure. However, because of persistent concerns about complications and patients’ ability to rehabilitate, it has not yet become routine practice.

Using data from the Scottish Arthroplasty Project, which has centrally collated data gathered prospectively between 1989 and 1999, we analysed 19 247 patients who underwent primary knee replacement. Any subsequent admission for TKR was noted. Deaths following an index procedure were identified from the General Register of Deaths.

In 30% of patients a contralateral TKR was done within 5 years. The overall hospital stay for both unilateral and bilateral TKR has been comparable since 1993. The mortality rate following simultaneous bilateral TKR (1%) is similar to that following unilateral TKR (1.2%).

Only 25% of Scottish Surgeons perform simultaneous bilateral TKR. However, bilateral knee arthritis is common and bilateral TKR carries no significantly increased cumulative risk of death, deep infection or need for revision. The increased likelihood of blood transfusion should be offset against the definite advantages of one anaesthetic, a reduced hospital stay and good early outcome.

Secretary: Dr H.J.S. Colyn, Editor: Professor M.B.E. Sweet. Correspondence should be addressed to SAOA, Box 47363, Parklands, Johannesburg, 2121, South Africa.