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. This retrospective, observational study reviewed patients who underwent unilateral, aseptic rTKA at an academic orthopaedic speciality hospital between June 2011 and April 2020 with > one-year of follow-up. Patients were dichotomized based on whether this was their first revision procedure or not. Patient demographics, surgical factors, postoperative outcomes, and re-revision rates were compared between the groups.Aims
Methods
Aseptic loosening of the tibial component is a frequent cause of failure in primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Management options include an isolated tibial revision or full component revision. A full component revision is frequently selected by surgeons unfamiliar with the existing implant or who simply wish to “start again”. This option adds morbidity compared with an isolated tibial revision. While isolated tibial revision has a lower morbidity, it is technically more challenging due to difficulties with exposure and maintaining prosthetic stability. This study was designed to compare these two reconstructive options. Patients undergoing revision TKA for isolated aseptic tibial loosening between 2012 and 2017 were identified. Those with revision implants or revised for infection, instability, osteolysis, or femoral component loosening were excluded. A total of 164 patients were included; 88 had an isolated tibial revision and 76 had revision of both components despite only having a loose tibial component. The demographics and clinical and radiological outcomes were recorded.Aims
Methods
Little is known about the relative outcomes of revision of unicompartmental
knee arthroplasty (UKA) and high tibial osteotomy (HTO) to total
knee arthroplasty (TKA). The aim of this study is to compare the
outcomes of revision surgery for the two procedures in terms of
complications, re-revision and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs)
at a minimum of two years follow-up. This study was a retrospective review of data from an institutional
arthroplasty registry for cases performed between 2001 and 2014.
A total of 292 patients were identified, of which 217 had a revision
of HTO to TKA, and 75 had revision of UKA to TKA. While mean follow-up
was longer for the HTO group compared with the UKA group, patient
demographics (age, body mass index and Charlson co-morbidity index)
and PROMs (Short Form-36, Oxford Knee Score, Knee Society Score,
both objective and functional) were similar in the two groups prior
to revision surgery. Outcomes included the rate of complications
and
re-operation, PROMS and patient-reported satisfaction at six months
and two years post-operatively. We also compared the duration of
surgery and the need for revision implants in the two groups. Aims
Patients and Methods
