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
There has been a recent increase in interest
for non-cemented fixation in total knee arthroplasty (TKA), however
the superiority of cement fixation is an ongoing debate. Whereas the results based on Level III and IV evidence show similar
survivorship rates between the two types of fixation, Level I and
II evidence strongly support cemented fixation. United Kingdom,
Australia, Sweden, and New Zealand registry data show lower failure
rates and greater usage of cemented than non-cemented fixation.
Case series studies have also indicated greater functional outcomes
and lower revision rates among cemented TKAs. Non-cemented fixation
involves more patellofemoral complications, including increased
susceptibility to wear due to a thinner polyethylene bearing on
the cementless metal-backed component. The combination of results
from registry data, prospective randomised studies, and meta-analyses
support the current superiority of cemented fixation in TKAs.
