Reasons for revision are associated with rerevised total knee arthroplasties: an analysis of 8,978 index revisions in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register
Background and purpose — From previous studies, we know that clinical outcomes of revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) differ among reasons for revision. Whether the prevalence of repeat rTKAs is different depending on the reason for index rTKA is unclear. Therefore, we (1) compared the repeat re...
Main Authors: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
Taylor & Francis Group
2021-05-01
|
Series: | Acta Orthopaedica |
Online Access: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17453674.2021.1925036 |
id |
doaj-609ae9f2b70e41a89cc6c0db28a9bf6d |
---|---|
record_format |
Article |
spelling |
doaj-609ae9f2b70e41a89cc6c0db28a9bf6d2021-06-02T08:05:32ZengTaylor & Francis GroupActa Orthopaedica1745-36741745-36822021-05-01001510.1080/17453674.2021.19250361925036Reasons for revision are associated with rerevised total knee arthroplasties: an analysis of 8,978 index revisions in the Dutch Arthroplasty RegisterMaartje Belt0Gerjon Hannink1José Smolders2Anneke Spekenbrink-Spooren3Berend W Schreurs4Katrijn Smulders5Research Department, Sint MaartenskliniekDepartment of Operating Rooms, Radboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health SciencesDepartment of OrthopedicsDutch Arthroplasty Register (Landelijke Registratie Orthopedische Implantaten), ‘s-HertogenboschDutch Arthroplasty Register (Landelijke Registratie Orthopedische Implantaten), ‘s-HertogenboschResearch Department, Sint MaartenskliniekBackground and purpose — From previous studies, we know that clinical outcomes of revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) differ among reasons for revision. Whether the prevalence of repeat rTKAs is different depending on the reason for index rTKA is unclear. Therefore, we (1) compared the repeat revision rates between the different reasons for index rTKA, and (2) evaluated whether the reason for repeat rTKA was the same as the reason for the index revision. Patients and methods — Patients (n = 8,978) who underwent an index rTKA between 2010 and 2018 as registered in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register were included. Reasons for revision, as reported by the surgeon, were categorized as: infection, loosening, malposition, instability, stiffness, patellar problems, and other. Competing risk analyses were performed to determine the cumulative repeat revision rates after an index rTKA for each reason for revision. Results — Overall, the cumulative repeat revision rate was 19% within 8 years after index rTKA. Patients revised for infection had the highest cumulative repeat revision rate (28%, 95% CI 25–32) within 8 years after index rTKA. The recurrence of the reason was more common than other reasons after index rTKA for infection (18%), instability (8%), stiffness (7%), and loosening (5%). Interpretation — Poorest outcomes were found for rTKA for infection: over 1 out of 4 infection rTKAs required another surgical intervention, mostly due to infection. Recurrence of other reasons for revision (instability, stiffness, and loosening) was also considerable. Our findings also emphasize the importance of a clear diagnosis before doing rTKA to avert second revision surgeries.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17453674.2021.1925036 |
collection |
DOAJ |
language |
English |
format |
Article |
sources |
DOAJ |
author |
Maartje Belt Gerjon Hannink José Smolders Anneke Spekenbrink-Spooren Berend W Schreurs Katrijn Smulders |
spellingShingle |
Maartje Belt Gerjon Hannink José Smolders Anneke Spekenbrink-Spooren Berend W Schreurs Katrijn Smulders Reasons for revision are associated with rerevised total knee arthroplasties: an analysis of 8,978 index revisions in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register Acta Orthopaedica |
author_facet |
Maartje Belt Gerjon Hannink José Smolders Anneke Spekenbrink-Spooren Berend W Schreurs Katrijn Smulders |
author_sort |
Maartje Belt |
title |
Reasons for revision are associated with rerevised total knee arthroplasties: an analysis of 8,978 index revisions in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register |
title_short |
Reasons for revision are associated with rerevised total knee arthroplasties: an analysis of 8,978 index revisions in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register |
title_full |
Reasons for revision are associated with rerevised total knee arthroplasties: an analysis of 8,978 index revisions in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register |
title_fullStr |
Reasons for revision are associated with rerevised total knee arthroplasties: an analysis of 8,978 index revisions in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register |
title_full_unstemmed |
Reasons for revision are associated with rerevised total knee arthroplasties: an analysis of 8,978 index revisions in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register |
title_sort |
reasons for revision are associated with rerevised total knee arthroplasties: an analysis of 8,978 index revisions in the dutch arthroplasty register |
publisher |
Taylor & Francis Group |
series |
Acta Orthopaedica |
issn |
1745-3674 1745-3682 |
publishDate |
2021-05-01 |
description |
Background and purpose — From previous studies, we know that clinical outcomes of revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) differ among reasons for revision. Whether the prevalence of repeat rTKAs is different depending on the reason for index rTKA is unclear. Therefore, we (1) compared the repeat revision rates between the different reasons for index rTKA, and (2) evaluated whether the reason for repeat rTKA was the same as the reason for the index revision. Patients and methods — Patients (n = 8,978) who underwent an index rTKA between 2010 and 2018 as registered in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register were included. Reasons for revision, as reported by the surgeon, were categorized as: infection, loosening, malposition, instability, stiffness, patellar problems, and other. Competing risk analyses were performed to determine the cumulative repeat revision rates after an index rTKA for each reason for revision. Results — Overall, the cumulative repeat revision rate was 19% within 8 years after index rTKA. Patients revised for infection had the highest cumulative repeat revision rate (28%, 95% CI 25–32) within 8 years after index rTKA. The recurrence of the reason was more common than other reasons after index rTKA for infection (18%), instability (8%), stiffness (7%), and loosening (5%). Interpretation — Poorest outcomes were found for rTKA for infection: over 1 out of 4 infection rTKAs required another surgical intervention, mostly due to infection. Recurrence of other reasons for revision (instability, stiffness, and loosening) was also considerable. Our findings also emphasize the importance of a clear diagnosis before doing rTKA to avert second revision surgeries. |
url |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17453674.2021.1925036 |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT maartjebelt reasonsforrevisionareassociatedwithrerevisedtotalkneearthroplastiesananalysisof8978indexrevisionsinthedutcharthroplastyregister AT gerjonhannink reasonsforrevisionareassociatedwithrerevisedtotalkneearthroplastiesananalysisof8978indexrevisionsinthedutcharthroplastyregister AT josesmolders reasonsforrevisionareassociatedwithrerevisedtotalkneearthroplastiesananalysisof8978indexrevisionsinthedutcharthroplastyregister AT annekespekenbrinkspooren reasonsforrevisionareassociatedwithrerevisedtotalkneearthroplastiesananalysisof8978indexrevisionsinthedutcharthroplastyregister AT berendwschreurs reasonsforrevisionareassociatedwithrerevisedtotalkneearthroplastiesananalysisof8978indexrevisionsinthedutcharthroplastyregister AT katrijnsmulders reasonsforrevisionareassociatedwithrerevisedtotalkneearthroplastiesananalysisof8978indexrevisionsinthedutcharthroplastyregister |
_version_ |
1721406697269886976 |