Revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a complex
procedure which carries both a greater risk for patients and greater
cost for the treating hospital than does a primary TKA. As well
as the increased cost of peri-operative investigations, blood transfusions,
surgical instrumentation, implants and operating time, there is
a well-documented increased length of stay which accounts for most
of the actual costs associated with surgery. We compared revision surgery for infection with revision for
other causes (pain, instability, aseptic loosening and fracture).
Complete clinical, demographic and economic data were obtained for
168 consecutive revision TKAs performed at a tertiary referral centre
between 2005 and 2012. Revision surgery for infection was associated with a mean length
of stay more than double that of aseptic cases (21.5 Current NHS tariffs do not fully reimburse the increased costs
of providing a revision knee surgery service. Moreover, especially
as greater costs are incurred for infected cases. These losses may
adversely affect the provision of revision surgery in the NHS. Cite this article:
We prospectively reviewed 1000 consecutive patients who underwent a cementless, hydroxyapatite-coated, stemless, total knee replacement over a period of nine years. Regular post-operative clinical follow-up was performed using the Knee Society score. The mean pre-operative score was 96, improving to 182 and 180 at five and ten years, respectively. To date, there have been seven (0.5%) cases which required revision, primarily for septic loosening (four cases), with low rates of other post-operative complications. The cumulative survival at ten years with revision as the end-point, was 99.14% (95% confidence interval 92.5 to 99.8). These results support the use of hydroxyapatite in a cementless total knee replacement since it can give reliable fixation with an excellent clinical and functional outcome.
In a series of 1304 patients (1867 knees), the results of simultaneous and staged bilateral total knee arthroplasty were compared with each other and with unilateral total knee arthroplasty. The bilateral procedures had a significantly higher rate of complications than unilateral procedures, almost entirely because of thromboembolic problems. However, this did not correspond to an increase in mortality. If a bilateral procedure was indicated, then a simultaneous procedure had no increased risk over a staged procedure. There was no increase in cardiovascular complications, the rate of deep-vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism or mortality. The rate of infection was lower with a bilateral procedure and the overall revision rate was less than 1% in all groups. The prosthesis functioned as well in all groups in the medium and longer term periods. We feel that simultaneous bilateral total knee arthroplasty is a safe and successful procedure when compared with a staged bilateral procedure. It also has the added benefit of single anaesthetic, reduced costs and decreased total recovery time when compared to a staged bilateral procedure. For these reasons it should be considered as an option in the presence of bilateral knee joint disease.
