Advertisement

Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®

, Volume 473, Issue 1, pp 213–219 | Cite as

Are Revisions of Patellofemoral Arthroplasties More Like Primary or Revision TKAs

  • Sébastien Parratte
  • Alexandre Lunebourg
  • Matthieu Ollivier
  • Matthew P. Abdel
  • Jean-Noël A. Argenson
Symposium: 2014 Knee Society Proceedings

Abstract

Background

Patellofemoral arthroplasty (PFA) can be considered in patients with patellofemoral disease. However, the use of partial arthroplasty often causes concern among clinicians and patients that revision to total knee arthroplasty (TKA) will be needed and, if so, whether this revision will be straightforward or more complicated.

Questions/purposes

We set out to determine if conversion of a PFA to a TKA was more similar to a primary or to a revision TKA in terms of surgical characteristics, knee scores, range of motion, and complications.

Methods

Between 2001 and 2008, we revised 21 PFAs to TKAs, all of which were available for followup at a minimum of 5 years (median, 6 years; range, 5–12 years). These patients were matched one-to-one by age, sex, body mass index, length of followup, and preoperative Knee Society Scores (KSS) to 21 primary and 21 revision TKAs. We analyzed operative time and amount of blood loss. Clinical outcomes assessed were range of motion and KSS.

Results

Blood loss (405 mL versus 460 mL versus 900 mL; odds/hazard ratio, 1.33, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.3–5.85; p = 0.14 for primary TKA versus revision PFA and odds/hazard ratio, 0.13, 95% CI, 0.03–0.52; p < 0.01 for revision PFA versus revision TKA) and operative time (52 minutes versus 72 minutes versus 115 minutes; odds/hazard ratio, 5.45, 95% CI, 1.23–27.4; p = 0.02 for primary TKA versus revision PFA and odds/hazard ratio, 0.5, 95% CI, 0.01–0.44; p < 0.001 for revision PFA versus revision TKA) were not different between the primary TKA and revision PFA groups but higher in the revision TKA group. KSS (knee and function) were higher in the primary TKA group (92 [range, 60–100] and 91 [range, 65–100]) than they were in the revision PFA (85 [range, 40–100] and 85 [range, 30–100]) and revision TKA groups (75 [range, 30–100] and 68 [range, 25–100]; p < 0.001). Flexion was better in the primary TKA (125 [range, 105–130]) and revised PFA (120 [range, 100–130]) groups than the revision TKA group (105 [range, 80–115]; p = 0.0013). There were more complications in the revision PFA group (two of 21) compared with the primary TKA group (zero of 21, p = 0.005) but not compared with the revision TKA group (three of 21; p = 0.85).

Conclusions

With the numbers available, we found that revising a PFA is comparable to a primary TKA in regard to surgical characteristics and postoperative clinical outcomes (including knee scores and range of motion), and both are superior to revision TKA, although the frequency of complications was higher in the revision PFA group than it was in the primary TKA group. The majority of patients undergoing revision of a PFA to a TKA can be treated with a standard implant.

Level of Evidence

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

Keywords

Total Knee Arthroplasty Knee Society Score Extensor Mechanism Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty Patellar Instability 
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.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Vanessa Pauly PhD, in Health Economic and Statistics for her help with the statistical analysis.

References

  1. 1.
    Ackroyd CE, Newman JH, Evans R, Eldridge JD, Joslin CC. The Avon patellofemoral arthroplasty: five-year survivorship and functional results. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007;89:310–315.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ahlback S. Osteoarthrosis of the knee. A radiographic investigation. Acta Radiol Diagn (Stockh). 1968;277:7–72.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Arciero RA, Toomey HE. Patellofemoral arthroplasty: a three to nine year follow-up study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1988;236:60–71.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Argenson JN, Flecher X, Parratte S, Aubaniac JM. Patellofemoral arthroplasty: an update. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005;440:50–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Register 2012. Available at: https://aoanjrr.dmac.adelaide.edu.au/annual-reports-2012. Accessed May 22, 2014.
  6. 6.
    Blazina ME, Fox JM, Del Pizzo W, Bronkhim B, Ivey FM. Patellofemoral replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1979;144:98–102.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cartier P, Sanouiller JL, Grelsamer R. Patello-femoral arthroplasty: 2–12 year follow-up study. J Arthroplasty. 1990;5:49–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Charnley J. The long-term results of low-friction arthroplasty of the hip performed as a primary intervention. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1972;54:61–76.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chouteau J, Moyen B. Results and reasons of failure of patellofemoral arthroplasties. In: Huten D, ed. Partial Knee Arthroplasties. 1st ed [in French]. Issy-les-Moulineaux, France: Elsevier Masson; 2012:163–172.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Davies AP, Vince AS, Shepstone L, Donell ST, Glasgow MM. The radiologic prevalence of patellofemoral osteoarthritis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2002;402:206–212.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fulkerson JP. Alternatives to patellofemoral arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005;436:76–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Huten D. Revisions of patellofemoral arthroplasty with a total knee arthroplasty. In: Huten D, ed. Partial Knee Arthroplasties. 1st ed [in French]. Issy-les-Moulineaux, France: Elsevier Masson; 2012:173–187.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD, Scott WN. Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989;248:13–14.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kooijman HJ, Driessen AP, van Horn JR. Long-term results of patellofemoral arthroplasty. A report of 56 arthroplasties with 17 years of follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2003;85:836–840.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Leadbetter WB, Ragland PS, Mont MA. The appropriate use of patellofemoral arthroplasty. An analysis of reported indications, contraindications, and failure. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005;436:91–99.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lonner JH. Patellofemoral arthroplasty. Pros, cons, and design considerations. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;428:158–165.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lonner JH, Bloomfield MR. The clinical outcome of patellofemoral arthroplasty. Orthop Clin North Am. 2013;44:271–280.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lonner JH, Jasko JG, Booth RE Jr. Revision of a failed patellofemoral arthroplasty to a total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88:2337–2342.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lubinus HH. Patella glide bearing total replacement. Orthopedics. 1979;2:119–127.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    McAlindon TE, Snow S, Cooper C, Dieppe PA. Radiographic pattern of osteo-arthritis of the knee joint in the community: the importance of the patello-femoral joint. Ann Rheum Dis. 1992;51:844–849.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    McKeever DC. Patellar prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1955;37:1074–1084.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Merchant AC. A modular prosthesis for patellofemoral arthroplasty. Design and initial results. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005;436:40–46.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mercuriali F, Inghilleri G. Proposal of an algorithm to help the choice of the best transfusion strategy. Curr Med Res Opin. 1996;13:465–478.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Parvizi J, Tarity TD, Steinbeck MJ, Politi RG, Joshi A, Purtill JJ, Sharkey PF. Management of stiffness following total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88(Suppl 4):175–181.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Post WR. Patellofemoral pain: results of nonoperative treatment. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005;436:55–59.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Singh JA, Lewallen DG. Patient-level improvements in pain and activities of daily living after total knee arthroplasty. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2014;53:313–320.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    The National Joint Registry for England and Wales: 7th annual report. Available at: http://www.njrcentre.org.uk/njrcentre/default.aspx. Accessed May 22, 2014.
  28. 28.
    Van Jonbergen HPW, Werkman DM, van Kampen A. Conversion of patellofemoral arthroplasty to total knee arthroplasty. A matched case-control study of 13 patients. Acta Orthop. 2009;80:62–66.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons® 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sébastien Parratte
    • 1
  • Alexandre Lunebourg
    • 1
  • Matthieu Ollivier
    • 1
  • Matthew P. Abdel
    • 2
  • Jean-Noël A. Argenson
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Institute for LocomotionAix-Marseille UniversityMarseilleFrance
  2. 2.Department of Orthopedic SurgeryMayo ClinicRochesterUSA

Personalised recommendations