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...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Maartje Belt, Gerjon Hannink, José Smolders, Anneke Spekenbrink-Spooren, Berend W Schreurs, Katrijn Smulders
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