Survival, functional outcome and satisfaction of first revision total knee arthroplasty at a mean eleven-year follow-up

Clinical Outcomes and Complications of 2-Stage Septic Versus Aseptic Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Although several studies have compared the clinical outcomes of septic and aseptic revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA), their results have been controversial. Therefore, this study aimed to compare clinical outcomes and complications of septic and aseptic revision TKA through a systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

The PubMed (MEDLINE) and Embase databases were searched for studies evaluating the clinical outcomes and complications of 2-stage septic revision and aseptic revision TKAs. A systematic review of clinical outcomes (Knee Society Knee and Function Scores and range of motion) and complications (reoperation, infection, and failure rates) was conducted.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies were included in the systematic review. The mean MINORS (Methodological Index for NOn-Randomized Studies) score of the included studies was 20.5 (range, 18 to 22). The meta-analysis revealed higher reoperation (risk ratio [RR], 1.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.50 to 2.62; p < 0.00001), infection (RR, 4.08; 95% CI, 2.94 to 5.64; p < 0.00001), and failure rates (RR, 2.88; 95% CI, 1.38 to 6.03; p = 0.005) in septic revision TKAs than in aseptic revision TKAs. Moreover, septic revision TKAs showed lower Knee Society Knee Scores compared with aseptic TKAs (mean difference [MD], -6.86; 95% CI, -11.80 to -1.92; p = 0.006). However, the Knee Society Function Score (MD, -1.84; 95% CI, -7.84 to 3.80; p = 0.52) and range of motion (MD, -6.96°; 95% CI, -16.23° to 2.31°; p = 0.14) were not significantly different between septic and aseptic revision TKAs.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the heterogeneity of prosthesis designs and surgical protocols used in septic and aseptic revision TKAs, the results of this systematic review suggest that 2-stage septic revision TKAs have poorer clinical outcomes and higher complication rates than aseptic revision TKAs do.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level III . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Cost-utility analysis of total knee arthroplasty using 10-year data from a randomised controlled trial: Implant design influences quality-adjusted life year gain

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to perform a cost-utility analysis for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) over a 10-year follow up period.

METHODS

Two-hundred and twelve patients were randomised to receive either a Kinemax or a Triathlon TKA. Patients were assessed pre-operatively, and at 6 months, and 1, 3, 7 and 10 years postoperatively. The costs of the primary and revision surgery were accounted for. One-year quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gain was used to estimate 10-year gains using the established annual health gain discounts.

RESULTS

Forty-eight patients died and eight were revised during the follow up period. Overall QALY gain per patient over the 10-year period was 2.594 and the cost per patient was £6559, which resulted in a cost per QALY of £2761 at 10 years. The Triathlon group had a significantly greater QALY gain compared with the Kinemax (mean difference (MD) 0.53, 95% CI 0.03-1.03, P = 0.02), which resulted in a cost per QALY for the Triathlon group of £2521 compared with £3107 for the Kinemax group at 10 years. The 5% annual discount resulted in a significantly lower QALY gain (MD 0.135, 95% CI 0.201-0.354, P = 0.002), whereas the 3.5% annual discount resulted in non-significant difference in QALY gain compared with the actual gain (MD 0.021, 95% CI -0.084 to 0.077, P = 0.292).

CONCLUSIONS

TKA was a cost-effective intervention, and the Triathlon was associated with a greater cost effectiveness at 10 years. The 3.5% annual discounts for QALY gain would seem to be the most accurate, with an underestimation being observed with the 5% discount.

Indications, clinical outcome and survival of rotating hinge total knee arthroplasty in a retrospective study of 63 primary and revision cases

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to report and compare outcome data of both primary and revision cases using a rotating hinge knee (RHK) implant.

METHODS

This study retrospectively analyzed 63 cases (19 primary, 44 revisions) at a mean follow-up of 34 ± 8 months after RHK implantation. Outcome parameters were stability, range of motion (ROM), loosening, Hospital of Special Surgery Score (HSS), Knee Society Score (KSS), Oxford Knee Score (OKS), EQ-5D-3L, and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for overall function. Revision rates and implant survival are reported.

RESULTS

Eleven percent showed medio-lateral instability < 5 mm, a mean ROM of 115° ± 17° and radiologic loosening occurred in 8% (2% symptomatic). PROMS showed the following results: HSS 79 ± 18, KSS 78 ± 27, OKS 26 ± 10, EQ-5D index 0.741 ± 0.233 and VAS 70 ± 20. Primary cases revealed better outcomes in HHS (p = .035) and OKS (p = 0.047). KSS, EQ-5D index and VAS did not differ between primary and revision cases (p = 0.070; p = 0.377; p = 0.117). Revision rate was 6.3% with an implant survival of 96.8%.

CONCLUSIONS

RHK arthroplasty can be performed with good clinical outcome and low revision rate in revision and complex primary cases. RHK is an option in cases where standard arthroplasty and even implants with a higher degree of constraint have reached their limits.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective cohort study.