A comparative study of patients presenting for planned and unplanned revision hip or knee arthroplasty

The unquantifiable benefits of modern arthroplasty networks

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(6):590–592.

A mapping review on preoperative prognostic factors and outcome measures of revision total knee arthroplasty

To map literature on prognostic factors related to outcomes of revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA), to identify extensively studied factors and to guide future research into what domains need further exploration. We performed a systematic literature search in MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science. The search string included multiple synonyms of the following keywords: "revision TKA", "outcome" and "prognostic factor". We searched for studies assessing the association between at least one prognostic factor and at least one outcome measure after rTKA surgery. Data on sample size, study design, prognostic factors, outcomes, and the direction of the association was extracted and included in an evidence map. After screening of 5,660 articles, we included 166 studies reporting prognostic factors for outcomes after rTKA, with a median sample size of 319 patients (30 to 303,867). Overall, 50% of the studies reported prospectively collected data, and 61% of the studies were performed in a single centre. In some studies, multiple associations were reported; 180 different prognostic factors were reported in these studies. The three most frequently studied prognostic factors were reason for revision (213 times), sex (125 times), and BMI (117 times). Studies focusing on functional scores and patient-reported outcome measures as prognostic factor for the outcome after surgery were limited (n = 42). The studies reported 154 different outcomes. The most commonly reported outcomes after rTKA were: re-revision (155 times), readmission (88 times), and reinfection (85 times). Only five studies included costs as outcome. Outcomes and prognostic factors that are routinely registered as part of clinical practice (e.g. BMI, sex, complications) or in (inter)national registries are studied frequently. Studies on prognostic factors, such as functional and sociodemographic status, and outcomes as healthcare costs, cognitive and mental function, and psychosocial impact are scarce, while they have been shown to be important for patients with osteoarthritis.

Patients Who Have Limited English Proficiency Have Decreased Utilization of Revision Surgeries After Hip and Knee Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

While racial and ethnic disparities are well documented in access to total joint arthroplasty (TJA), little is known about the association between having limited English proficiency (LEP) and postoperative care access. This study seeks to correlate LEP status with rates of revision surgery after hip and knee arthroplasty.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of patients aged ≥ 18 years who underwent either total hip or total knee arthroplasty between January 2013 and December 2021 at a single academic medical center. The predictor variable was English proficiency status, where LEP was defined as having a primary language that was not English. Multivariable regressions controlling for potential demographic and clinical confounders were used to calculate adjusted odds ratios of undergoing revision surgery within 1 and 2 years after primary arthroplasty for patients who have LEP, compared to English proficient patients.

RESULTS

A total of 7,985 hip and knee arthroplasty surgeries were included in the analysis. There were 577 (7.2%) patients who were classified as having LEP. Patients who have LEP were less likely to undergo revision surgeries within 1 year (1.4% versus 3.2%, P = .01) and 2 years (1.7% versus 3.9%, P = .006) of primary TJA. Patients who have LEP had adjusted odds ratios of 0.45 (confidence interval: 0.22-0.92, P = .03) and 0.44 (confidence interval: 0.23-0.85, P = .01) of receiving revision surgery within 1 and 2 years, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Patients who have LEP, compared to English proficient patients, were less likely to undergo revision surgeries at the same institution up to 2 years after hip and knee arthroplasty. These findings suggest that patients who have LEP may face barriers in accessing postoperative care.

Mid- to late-term follow-up of primary hip and knee arthroplasty: the UK SAFE evidence-based recommendations

To review the evidence and reach consensus on recommendations for follow-up after total hip and knee arthroplasty. A programme of work was conducted, including: a systematic review of the clinical and cost-effectiveness literature; analysis of routine national datasets to identify pre-, peri-, and postoperative predictors of mid-to-late term revision; prospective data analyses from 560 patients to understand how patients present for revision surgery; qualitative interviews with NHS managers and orthopaedic surgeons; and health economic modelling. Finally, a consensus meeting considered all the work and agreed the final recommendations and research areas. The UK poSt Arthroplasty Follow-up rEcommendations (UK SAFE) recommendations apply to post-primary hip and knee arthroplasty follow-up. The ten-year time point is based on a lack of robust evidence beyond ten years. The term 'complex cases' refers to individual patient and surgical factors that may increase the risk for arthroplasty failure. For Orthopaedic Data Evaluation Panel (ODEP) 10A* minimum implants, it is safe to disinvest in routine follow-up from one to ten years post-non-complex hip and knee arthroplasty provided there is rapid access to orthopaedic review. For ODEP 10A* minimum implants in complex cases, or non-ODEP 10A* minimum implants, periodic follow-up post-hip and knee arthroplasty may be required from one to ten years. At ten years post-hip and knee arthroplasty, clinical and radiological evaluation is recommended. After ten years post-hip and knee arthroplasty, frequency of further follow-up should be based on the ten-year assessment; ongoing rapid access to orthopaedic review is still required. Complex cases, implants not meeting the ODEP 10A* criteria, and follow-up after revision surgery are not covered by this recommendation.

The lifetime revision risk of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty

AIMS

Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) has a higher risk of revision than total knee arthroplasty (TKA), particularly for younger patients. The outcome of knee arthroplasty is typically defined as implant survival or revision incidence after a defined number of years. This can be difficult for patients to conceptualize. We aimed to calculate the 'lifetime risk' of revision for UKA as a more meaningful estimate of risk projection over a patient's remaining lifetime, and to compare this to TKA.

METHODS

Incidence of revision and mortality for all primary UKAs performed from 1999 to 2019 (n = 13,481) was obtained from the New Zealand Joint Registry (NZJR). Lifetime risk of revision was calculated for patients and stratified by age, sex, and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade.

RESULTS

The lifetime risk of revision was highest in the youngest age group (46 to 50 years; 40.4%) and decreased sequentially to the oldest (86 to 90 years; 3.7%). Across all age groups, lifetime risk of revision was higher for females (ranging from 4.3% to 43.4% vs males 2.9% to 37.4%) and patients with a higher ASA grade (ASA 3 to 4, ranging from 8.8% to 41.2% vs ASA 1 1.8% to 29.8%). The lifetime risk of revision for UKA was double that of TKA across all age groups (ranging from 3.7% to 40.4% for UKA, and 1.6% to 22.4% for TKA). The higher risk of revision in younger patients was associated with aseptic loosening in both sexes and pain in females. Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) accounted for 4% of all UKA revisions, in contrast with 27% for TKA; the risk of PJI was higher for males than females for both procedures.

CONCLUSION

Lifetime risk of revision may be a more meaningful measure of arthroplasty outcomes than implant survival at defined time periods. This study highlights the higher lifetime risk of UKA revision for younger patients, females, and those with a higher ASA grade, which can aid with patient counselling prior to UKA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(6):672-679.