Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®

, Volume 471, Issue 7, pp 2296–2302 | Cite as

Reason for Revision TKA Predicts Clinical Outcome: Prospective Evaluation of 150 Consecutive Patients With 2-years Followup

  • Robin W. T. M. van Kempen
  • Janneke J. P. SchimmelEmail author
  • Gijs G. van Hellemondt
  • Hilde Vandenneucker
  • Ate B. Wymenga
Clinical Research



There is limited knowledge regarding the relationship between the reason for revising a TKA and the clinical outcome in terms of satisfaction, pain, and function with time.


In a cohort of patients receiving a fully revised TKA, we hypothesized (1) outcomes would differ according to reason for revision at 2 years, (2) outcomes would improve gradually during those 2 years, (3) rates of complications differ depending on the reason for revision, and (4) patients with complications have lower scores.


We studied a prospective cohort of 150 patients receiving a fully revised TKA using a single implant system in two high-volume centers at 24 months of followup. VAS satisfaction, VAS pain, The Knee Society Scoring System© (KSS) clinical and functional scores, and complication rate were correlated with their reasons for revision, including septic loosening, aseptic loosening, component malposition, instability, and stiffness.


The aseptic loosening group showed better outcomes compared with the instability, malposition, and septic loosening groups, which showed intermediate results (p < 0.05). The stiffness group performed significantly worse on all outcome measures. The outcome for patients with a complication, after treatment of the complication, was less favorable.


The reason for revision TKA predicts clinical outcomes. Satisfaction, pain reduction, and functional improvement are better and complication rates are lower after revision TKA for aseptic loosening than for other causes of failure. For component malposition, instability, and septic loosening groups, there may be more pain and a higher complication rate. For stiffness, the outcomes are less favorable in all scores.

Level of Evidence

Level III, prognostic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.


Aseptic Loosening Minimum Clinically Important Difference Revision Group Septic Loosening Instability Group 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



We thank the orthopaedic surgeons K. C. Defoort MD (Sint Maartenskliniek) and J. Bellemans MD (University Hospital Leuven) for performing surgeries on the patients included in this study and their helpful comments during manuscript preparation. We acknowledge P. G. Anderson for helpful editorial assistance.


  1. 1.
    Baker P, Cowling P, Kurtz S, Jameson S, Gregg P, Deehan D. Reason for revision influences early patient outcomes after aseptic knee revision. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012; 470:2244–2252.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brander V, Gondek S, Martin E, Stulberg SD. Pain and depression influence outcome 5 years after knee replacement surgery. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;464:21–26.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Elson DW, Brenkel IJ. A conservative approach is feasible in unexplained pain after knee replacement: a selected cohort study. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007;89:1042–1045.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fosco M, Filanti M, Amendola L, Savarino LM, Tigani D. Total knee arthroplasty in stiff knee compared with flexible knees. Musculoskelet Surg. 2011;95:7–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ghomrawi HM, Kane RL, Eberly LE, Bershadsky B, Saleh KJ; North American Knee Arthroplasty Revision (NAKAR) Study Group. Patterns of functional improvement after revision knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91:2838–2845.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Haidukewych GJ, Jacofsky DJ, Pagnano MW, Trousdale RT. Functional results after revision of well-fixed components for stiffness after primary total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2005;20:133–138.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hartley RC, Barton-Hanson NG, Finley R, Parkinson RW. Early patient outcomes after primary and revision total knee arthroplasty: a prospective study. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2002;84:994–999.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hossain F, Patel S, Haddad FS. Midterm assessment of causes and results of revision total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468:1221–1228.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jacobs MA, Hungerford DS, Krackow KA, Lennox DW. Revision total knee arthroplasty for aseptic failure. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1988;226:78–85.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kim J, Nelson CL, Lotke PA. Stiffness after total knee arthroplasty: prevalence of the complication and outcomes of revision. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86:1479–1484.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lonner JH, Fehring TK, Hanssen AD, Pellegrini VD Jr, Padgett DE, Wright TM, Potter HG. Revision total knee arthroplasty: the preoperative evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91(suppl 5):64–68.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mandalia V, Eyres K, Schranz P, Toms AD. Evaluation of patients with a painful total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008;90:265–271.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Meek RM, Masri BA, Dunlop D, Garbuz DS, Greidanus NV, McGraw R, Duncan CP. Patient satisfaction and functional status after treatment of infection at the site of a total knee arthroplasty with use of the PROSTALAC articulating spacer. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85:1888–1892.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mont MA, Serna FK, Krackow KA, Hungerford DS. Exploration of radiographically normal total knee replacements for unexplained pain. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996;331:216–220.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Parratte S Pagnano MW. Instability after total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90:184–194.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Patil N, Lee K, Huddleston JI, Harris AH, Goodman SB. Aseptic versus septic revision total knee arthroplasty: patient satisfaction, outcome and quality of life improvement. Knee. 2010;17:200–203.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pun SY Ries MD. Effect of gender and preoperative diagnosis on results of revision total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008;466:2701–2705.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Saleh KJ, Dyke DC, Tweedie RL, Mohamed K, Ravichandran A, Saleh RM, Gioe TJ, Heck DA. Functional outcome after total knee arthroplasty revision: a meta-analysis. J Arthroplasty. 2002;17:967–977.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Singh J, Sloan JA, Johanson NA. Challenges with health-related quality of life assessment in arthroplasty patients: problems and solutions. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2010;18:72–82.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Toms AD, Mandalia V, Haigh R, Hopwood B. The management of patients with painful total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2009;91:143–150.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons® 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robin W. T. M. van Kempen
    • 1
  • Janneke J. P. Schimmel
    • 1
    Email author
  • Gijs G. van Hellemondt
    • 1
  • Hilde Vandenneucker
    • 2
  • Ate B. Wymenga
    • 1
  1. 1.Sint MaartenskliniekNijmegenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.University Hospital LeuvenPellenberg-LubbeekBelgium

Personalised recommendations