Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Clinical Research
  • Published:
Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®

A CORR Insights® to this article was published on 19 April 2013

Abstract

Background

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.

Questions/purposes

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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.

Conclusions

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Jacobs MA, Hungerford DS, Krackow KA, Lennox DW. Revision total knee arthroplasty for aseptic failure. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1988;226:78–85.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Parratte S Pagnano MW. Instability after total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90:184–194.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Sint Maartenskliniek, PO Box 9011, 6500 GM, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

    Robin W. T. M. van Kempen MD, Janneke J. P. Schimmel MSc, Gijs G. van Hellemondt MD & Ate B. Wymenga MD, PhD

  2. University Hospital Leuven, Campus Pellenberg, Weligerveld 1, 3212, Pellenberg-Lubbeek, Belgium

    Hilde Vandenneucker MD

Authors
  1. Robin W. T. M. van Kempen MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Janneke J. P. Schimmel MSc
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gijs G. van Hellemondt MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hilde Vandenneucker MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ate B. Wymenga MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Janneke J. P. Schimmel MSc.

Additional information

The institute of one or more of the authors (RWTMK, JJPS, GGH, ABW) has received, during the study period, funding from Smith & Nephew Inc (Memphis, TN, USA). One or more of the authors (GGH, HV, ABW) certifies that he or she, or a member of his or her immediate family, has received or may receive payments or benefits, during the study period, an amount of USD (GGH: USD 10,000–USD 100,000; HV: USD 10,000–USD 100,000; ABW: USD 10,000–USD 100,000), from Smith & Nephew.

All ICMJE Conflict of Interest Forms for authors and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research editors and board members are on file with the publication and can be viewed on request.

Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research neither advocates nor endorses the use of any treatment, drug, or device. Readers are encouraged to always seek additional information, including FDA-approval status, of any drug or device prior to clinical use.

Each author certifies that his or her institution approved or waived approval for the human protocol for this investigation and that all investigations were conducted in conformity with ethical principles of research.

This work was performed at the Sint Maartenskliniek, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

About this article

Cite this article

van Kempen, R.W.T.M., Schimmel, J.J.P., van Hellemondt, G.G. et al. Reason for Revision TKA Predicts Clinical Outcome: Prospective Evaluation of 150 Consecutive Patients With 2-years Followup. Clin Orthop Relat Res 471, 2296–2302 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-013-2940-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-013-2940-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation