A REVIEW OF REVISION PATELLOFEMORAL ARTHROPLASTY PATIENTS.

Abstract

Purpose: Revision patellofemoral arthroplasty (PFA) is a relatively uncommon procedure, with no published reviews identified in the literature. Revision PFAs performed at our institution were reviewed to determine the reasons for PFA failure, the technical ease of revision and to document patient-reported outcomes after revision.

Methods: A prospective review of a cohort of 411 Avon PFA patients identified 31 subsequent revision knee procedures in 27 patients. Data was collected from the institution’s prospective data base, operative reports, X-rays and medical records. Post-operative knee scores (Oxford Knee Score, WOMAC Osteoarthritis Index, Bristol Knee Score) were available on 26 knees.

Results: The commonest reason for revision was progression of osteoarthritis (18 cases) followed by undetermined pain (7 cases). Patients with undetermined pain were found to be revised sooner than patients with disease progression (33 months vs 63 months) and also reported poorer outcome scores at 2 years post revision than the disease progression group.

Only two trochlea components were loose at the time of revision and one patella had a large amount of macroscopic wear. All other components were found to be well fixed with minimal wear at the time of revision. There were no difficulties in removing either component. No cases required augments or stemmed femoral components due to bone loss.

Patients undergoing revision surgery did report improvement in their post revision outcome scores compared with their pre-operative scores. The average Oxford Knee Score improved from 17 to 23, Bristol Knee Pain Scores improved from 11 to 20 and Bristol Knee Functional Scores improved from 15 to 16. These results are poorer than those recorded by the overall cohort of primary PFA.

Conclusion: PFA is easy to revise to a primary total knee. Results of revision knees are improved from pre-operative scores but not as good as expected.