The strain on clinic and surgeon resources resulting from a rise in demand for total knee replacement (TKR) requires reconsideration of when and how often patients need to be seen for follow-up. Surgeons will otherwise require increased paramedical staff or need to limit the number of TKRs they undertake. We reviewed the outcome data of 16 414 primary TKRs undertaken at our centre to determine the time to re-operation for any reason and for specific failure mechanisms. Peak risk years for failure were determined by comparing the conditional probability of failure, the number of failures divided by the total number of TKRs cases, for each year. The median times to failure for the most common failure mechanisms were 4.9 years (interquartile range (IQR) 1.7 to 10.7) for femoral and tibial loosening, 1.9 years (IQR 0.8 to 3.9) for infection, 3.1 years (IQR 1.6 to 5.5) for tibial collapse and 5.6 years (IQR 3.4 to 9.3) for instability. The median time to failure for all revisions was 3.3 years (IQR 1.2 to 8.5), with an overall revision rate of 1.7% (n = 282). Results from our patient population suggest that patients be seen for follow-up at six months, one year, three years, eight years, 12 years, and every five years thereafter. Patients with higher pain in the early post-operative period or high body mass index (≥ 41 kg/m²) should be monitored more closely.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:1484–9.

Aims

Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) has a higher risk of revision than total knee arthroplasty (TKA), particularly for younger patients. The outcome of knee arthroplasty is typically defined as implant survival or revision incidence after a defined number of years. This can be difficult for patients to conceptualize. We aimed to calculate the ‘lifetime risk’ of revision for UKA as a more meaningful estimate of risk projection over a patient’s remaining lifetime, and to compare this to TKA.

Aims

The success of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is usually measured using functional outcome scores and revision-free survivorship. However, reporting the lifetime risk of revision may be more meaningful to patients when gauging risks, especially in younger patients. We aimed to assess the lifetime risk of revision for patients in different age categories at the time of undergoing primary TKA.

We analysed at a mean follow-up of 7.25 years the clinical and radiological outcome of 117 patients (125 knees) who had undergone a primary, cemented, modular Freeman-Samuelson total knee replacement. While the tibial and femoral components were cemented, the patellar component was uncemented. A surface-cementing technique was used to secure the tibial components. A total of 82 knees was available for radiological assessment. Radiolucent lines were seen in 41 knees (50%) and osteolytic lesions were seen in 13 knees (16%). Asymptomatic, rotational loosening of the patellar implant was seen in four patients and osteolysis was more common in patients with a patellar resurfacing. Functional outcome scores were available for 41 patients (41 knees, 35%) and the mean Western Ontario McMasters Universities score was 77.5 (sd 19.5) and the cumulative survival was 93.4% at ten years with revision for aseptic loosening as an endpoint. Increased polyethylene wear from modular components, a rotationally-loose patella, and the surface-cementing technique may have contributed to the high rate of osteolysis seen in our study.