Complications of Total Knee Arthroplasty: Standardized List and Definitions of The Knee Society
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
Despite the importance of complications in evaluating patient outcomes after TKA, definitions of TKA complications are not standardized. Different investigators report different complications with different definitions when reporting outcomes of TKA.
We developed a standardized list and definitions of complications and adverse events associated with TKA.
In 2009, The Knee Society appointed a TKA Complications Workgroup that surveyed the orthopaedic literature and proposed a list of TKA complications and adverse events with definitions. An expert opinion survey of members of The Knee Society was used to test the applicability and reasonableness of the proposed TKA complications. For each complication, members of The Knee Society were asked “Do you agree with the inclusion of this complication as among the minimum necessary for reporting outcomes of knee arthroplasty?” and “Do you agree with this definition?”
One hundred two clinical members (100%) of The Knee Society responded to the survey. All proposed complications and definitions were endorsed by the members, and 678 suggestions were incorporated into the final work product. The 22 TKA complications and adverse events include bleeding, wound complication, thromboembolic disease, neural deficit, vascular injury, medial collateral ligament injury, instability, malalignment, stiffness, deep joint infection, fracture, extensor mechanism disruption, patellofemoral dislocation, tibiofemoral dislocation, bearing surface wear, osteolysis, implant loosening, implant fracture/tibial insert dissociation, reoperation, revision, readmission, and death.
We identified 22 complications and adverse events that we believe are important for reporting outcomes of TKA. Acceptance and utilization of these standardized TKA complications may improve evaluation and reporting of TKA outcomes.
- Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, Campbell J, Stitt LW. Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. J Rheumatol. 1988;15:1833–1840.
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. CDC/NHSN surveillance definition of healthcare-associated infection and criteria for specific types of infections in the acute care setting. January 1, 2012. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/nhsn/PDFs/pscManual/17pscNosInfDef_current.pdf. Accessed June 25, 2012.
- Conaghan PG, Emerton M, Tennant A. Internal construct validity of the Oxford Knee Scale: evidence from Rasch measurement. Arthritis Rheum. 2007;57:1363–1367. CrossRef
- Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004;240:205–213. CrossRef
- Dixon MC, Brown RR, Parsch D, Scott RD. Modular fixed-bearing total knee arthroplasty with retention of the posterior cruciate ligament. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87:598–603. CrossRef
- Dunbar MJ, Robertsson O, Ryd L, Lidgren L. Appropriate questionnaires for total knee arthroplasty: results of a survey of 3600 patients from the Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Registry. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2001;83:339–344. CrossRef
- Fehring T, Odum S, Troyer J, Iorio R. Joint replacement access in 2016: a supply side crisis. J Arthroplasty. 2010;25:1175–1181. CrossRef
- Fitzsimmons SE, Vazquez EA, Bronson MJ. How to treat the stiff total knee arthroplasty? A systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468:1096–1106. CrossRef
- Goldhahn S, Sawaguchi T, Audige L, Mund R, Hanson B, Bhandari M, Goldhahn J. Complication reporting in orthopaedic trials: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91:1847–1853. CrossRef
- Healy WL, Rana A, Iorio R. Hospital economics of primary total knee arthroplasty at a teaching hospital. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469:87–94. CrossRef
- Hensyl WR, ed. Stedman’s Medical Dictionary. 25th ed. Baltimore, MD: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 1990:336.
- Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD, Scott WN. Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989;248:13–14.
- Insall JN, Ranawat CS, Aglietti P, Shine J. A comparison of four models of total knee-replacement prostheses. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1976;58:754–765.
- Iorio R, Robb WJ, Healy WL, Berry DJ, Hozack WJ, Kyle RF, Lewallen DG, Trousdale RT, Jiranek WA, Stamos VP, Parsley BS. Orthopaedic surgeon workforce and volume assessment for total hip and knee replacement in the United States: preparing for an epidemic. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90:1598–1605. CrossRef
- Kelly MA, Clarke HD. Long-term results of posterior cruciate-substituting total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2002;404:51–57. CrossRef
- Knee Society. Bylaws. 2012. Available at: http://www.aahks.org/about/AAHKSBylaws.pdf. Accessed April 4, 2012.
- Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, Mowat F, Halpern M. Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89:780–785. CrossRef
- Kurtz SM, Lau E, Ong K, Zhao K, Kelly M, Bozic KJ. Future young patient demand for primary and revision joint replacement: national projections from 2010 to 2030. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009;467:2606–2612. CrossRef
- Losina E, Walensky RP, Kessler CL, Emrani PS, Reichmann WM, Wright EA, Holt HL, Solomon DH, Yelin E, Paltiel AD, Katz JN. Cost-effectiveness of total knee arthroplasty in the United States: patient risk and hospital volume. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169:1102–1103, discussion 1121–1122. CrossRef
- McHorney CA, Haley SM, Ware JE Jr. Evaluation of the MOS SF-36 Physical Functioning Scale (PF-10): II. Comparison of relative precision using Likert and Rasch scoring methods. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997;50:451–461. CrossRef
- Noble PC, Scuderi GR, Brekke AC, Sikorskii A, Benjamin JB, Lonner JH, Chadha P, Daylamani DA, Scott WN, Bourne RB. Development of a new Knee Society Scoring System. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;470:20–32. CrossRef
- Parvizi J, Zmistowiski BS, Berbari EF, Baver TW, Spinger BD, Della Valle CJ, Garvin KL, Mont MA, Wongworawat MD, Zalavras CG. New definition for periprosthetic joint infection (from the work group of the Musculoskeletal Infection Society). Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469:2992–2994. CrossRef
- Ries MD, Philbin EF, Groff GD, Sheesley KA, Richman JA, Lynch F Jr. Improvement in cardiovascular fitness after total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1996;78:1696–1701.
- Robertsson O, Dunbar MJ. Patient satisfaction compared with general health and disease-specific questionnaires in knee arthroplasty patients. J Arthroplasty. 2001;16:476–482. CrossRef
- Scuderi GR, Bourne RB, Noble PC, Benjamin JB, Lonner JH, Scott WN. The new Knee Society Knee Scoring System. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;470:3–19. CrossRef
- Soohoo NF, Zingmond DS, Lieberman JR, Ko CY. Optimal timeframe for reporting short-term complication rates after total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2006;21:705–711. CrossRef
- Veen SJ, Steenbruggen J, Roukema J. Classifying surgical complications: a critical appraisal. Arch Surg. 2005;140:1078–1083. CrossRef
- Watkins-Castillo S. Orthopaedic Practice in the US 2004–2005. Rosemont, IL: American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons; 2004:1–4.
- Complications of Total Knee Arthroplasty: Standardized List and Definitions of The Knee Society
Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®
Volume 471, Issue 1 , pp 215-220
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Additional Links
- Industry Sectors
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Lahey Clinic Medical Center, 41 Mall Road, Burlington, MA, 01805, USA
- 2. Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA
- 3. Joint Implant Surgeons, Inc, New Albany, OH, USA
- 4. Insall Scott Kelly Institute, New York, NY, USA
- 5. Towson Orthopaedic Associates, Towson, MD, USA
- 6. Rothman Institute, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA