Aims

This study aimed to determine outcomes of isolated tibial insert exchange (ITIE) during revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA).

Introduction. The number of medial unicompartmental knee replacements (UKR) performed for arthritis has increased and as such, revisions to total knee replacement (TKR) is increasing. Previous studies have investigated survivorship of UKR to TKR revision and functional outcomes compared to TKR to TKR revision, but have failed to detail the surgical considerations involved in these revisions. Our objectives are to investigate the detailed surgical considerations involved in UKR to TKR revisions. Methods. This study is a retrospective comparative analysis of a prospectively collected database. From 2005 to 2017, 61 revisions of UKR to TKR were completed at a single center. Our inclusion criteria included: revision of UKR to TKR or TKR to TKR with minimum 1 year follow-up. Our exclusion criteria include: single component and liner revisions and revision for infection. The 61 UKR to TKR revisions were matched 2:1 with respect to age, ASA and BMI to a group of 122 TKR to TKR revisions. The following data was collected: indication for and time to revision, operative skin to skin surgical time, the use of specialized equipment (augment size/location, stem use), intraoperative and postoperative complications, re-operations and outcome scores (WOMAC, Oxford 12, SF 12, satisfaction score). Results. There were no statistical differences between the demographic data from either group (age, BMI, ASA, sex and follow-up range). Progression of arthritis was the most common reason for revision in the UKR to TKR group (30/61, 49%, p < 0.001). Aseptic loosening was the most common reason for revision in the TKR to TKR group (73/122, 60%,) and was encountered more often than aseptic loosening in the UKR to TKR group (21/61, 35%, p=0.002). The operative time was longer in the TKR to TKR group (77 vs 112 min, p< 0.001). Femoral augmentation was required for one 1/61 (1.64%) UNI and 92/122 (75%) TKR revisions, respectively (p <0.001). Medial tibial augments were required in 9/61 (14.8%) of the UKR to TKR group while 12/122 (10%) and 10/122 (8%) of the TKR to TKR group required medial and full tibial augments, respectively (p=0.7). UKR to TKR revisions never required femoral stems while 120/122 (98%) of the TKR to TKR group did (p<0.001). Tibial stems were required in 19/61 (31%) and 122/122 (100%) of UKR to TKR and TKR to TKR groups, respectively (p<0.001). There was no statistical difference in the overall complication rate of either group (15% in the UKR to TKR group and 13% in the TKR to TKR group, p = 0.9). Stiffness was a common complication of UKR to TKR and TKR to TKR re-revisions at 2/61 (3%), and 6/122 (5%), respectively (P = 0.6). Aseptic loosening was also a common complication of in both groups at 2/61 (3%) and 4/122 (3%) in the UKR to TKR and TKR to TKR groups, respectively (p = 0.7). There was no statistical difference in the re-operation rate of either group (10% in the UKR to TKR group and 7% in the TKR to TKR group, P = 1). Stiffness was the most common indication for re-operation in the UKR to TKR group (2/61, 3%, p = 0.11) while aseptic loosening was the most common in the TKR to TKR group (4/122, 3.2%, p = 0.7). The survivorship in the UKR to TKR was 93% and 90% at 5 and 9 years, respectively. The survivorship in the TKR to TKR group was 95% and 94% at 5 and 9 years, respectively, which was not statistically different from the UKR group. Discussion. The most common reason for revision was different between the two groups (p < 0.001) while the skin to skin time was longer in the TKR to TKR group. In terms of revision components, femoral stems were never required in the UKR to TKR group while tibial stems were only required in 31%. Similarly, medial tibial augments were only required in 15% of the UKR to TKR group. While the surgeon must be prepared to use augmentation and stems in UKR to TKR revisions, they can often be completed with primary components and therefor will have an overall lower cost to the health care system. Furthermore, the survivorship and re-operation between the two groups was similar which supports previous literature. The results of this study will allow for a more in-depth cost-effectiveness analysis of UKR to TKR vs TKR to TKR in arthroplasty decision making. Unicompartmental knee replacements should be considered in appropriate patients to decrease the lifetime cost of arthroplasty intervention and potentially decrease the burden on the health care system. For figures, tables, or references, please contact authors directly

Aims

Revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) is a technically challenging and costly procedure. It is well-documented that primary TKA (pTKA) have better survivorship than rTKA; however, we were unable to identify any studies explicitly investigating previous rTKA as a risk factor for failure following rTKA. The purpose of this study is to compare the outcomes following rTKA between patients undergoing index rTKA and those who had been previously revised.

Aims

It has previously been shown that higher-volume hospitals have better outcomes following revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA). We were unable to identify any studies which investigated the effect of surgeon volume on the outcome of rTKA. We sought to investigate whether patients of high-volume (HV) rTKA surgeons have better outcomes following this procedure compared with those of low-volume (LV) surgeons.

Aims

Tibial cones are often utilized in revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) with metaphyseal defects. Because there are few studies evaluating mid-term outcomes with a sufficient cohort, the purpose of this study was to evaluate tibial cone survival and complications in revision TKAs with tibial cones at minimum follow-up of five years.