We wished to compare the clinical outcome, as assessed by questionnaires
and the rate of complications, in total knee arthroplasty (TKA)
undertaken with patient-matched positioning guides (PMPGs) or conventional
instruments. A total of 180 patients (74 men, 106 women; mean age 67 years)
were included in a multicentre, adequately powered, double-blind,
randomised controlled trial. The mean follow-up was 44 months (24
to 57).Aims
Patients and Methods
Although it has been suggested that the outcome
after revision of a unicondylar knee replacement (UKR) to total knee
replacement (TKR) is better when the mechanism of failure is understood,
a comparative study on this subject has not been undertaken. A total of 30 patients (30 knees) who underwent revision of their
unsatisfactory UKR to TKR were included in the study: 15 patients
with unexplained pain comprised group A and 15 patients with a defined
cause for pain formed group B. The Oxford knee score (OKS), visual
analogue scale for pain (VAS) and patient satisfaction were assessed before
revision and at one year after revision, and compared between the
groups. The mean OKS improved from 19 (10 to 30) to 25 (11 to 41) in
group A and from 23 (11 to 45) to 38 (20 to 48) in group B. The
mean VAS improved from 7.7 (5 to 10) to 5.4 (1 to 8) in group A
and from 7.4 (2 to 9) to 1.7 (0 to 8) in group B. There was a statistically
significant difference between the mean improvements in each group
for both OKS (p = 0.022) and VAS (p = 0.002). Subgroup analysis
in group A, performed in order to define a patient factor that predicts
outcome of revision surgery in patients with unexplained pain, showed
no pre-operative differences between both subgroups. These results may be used to inform patients about what to expect
from revision surgery, highlighting that revision of UKR to TKR
for unexplained pain generally results in a less favourable outcome
than revision for a known cause of pain. Cite this article:
