Registry outcomes of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty revisions
- PMID: 18465185
- PMCID: PMC2505265
- DOI: 10.1007/s11999-008-0279-3
Registry outcomes of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty revisions
Abstract
Perceptions of the difficulty and outcome of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty revision (rev-UKA) vary. We analyzed differences in the complexity, cost, and survival of rev-UKAs compared with revision TKAs (rev-TKA). One hundred eighty knee arthroplasty revisions (68 rev-UKAs/112 rev-TKAs), defined as a minimum of tibial or femoral component revision, were identified from a community joint registry of 7587 knee implants performed between 1991 and 2005. Four of 68 rev-UKAs (5.9%) were revised a second time, whereas seven of 112 rev-TKAs (6.3%) were rerevised. Rev-TKA was predictably more complex than rev-UKA based on the proxies of operative time, use of modular augmentation and stems, and polyethylene liner thickness. Thirty-nine of 68 rev-UKAs (57%) had no form of augmentation and were revised as primary TKAs. There were more rev-TKAs than rev-UKAs with an implant cost greater than $5200 (42% versus 12%) and hospital charges greater than $33,000 (48% versus 25%). We found no difference in survival between the groups. Although rev-UKAs had less surgical complexity and bone loss at the time of revision compared with rev-TKAs, we were unable to show improved survival of rev-UKAs compared with rev-TKAs. Rev-UKAs were associated with lower implant costs and hospital charges compared with rev-TKAs.
Level of evidence: Level II, prognostic study.
Figures
References
-
- {'text': '', 'ref_index': 1, 'ids': [{'type': 'PubMed', 'value': '12473714', 'is_inner': True, 'url': 'https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12473714/'}]}
- Argenson JN, Chevrol-Benkeddache Y, Aubaniac JM. Modern unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with cement: a three to ten-year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002;84:2235–2239. - PubMed
-
- {'text': '', 'ref_index': 1, 'ids': [{'type': 'PubMed', 'value': '6851331', 'is_inner': True, 'url': 'https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6851331/'}]}
- Bae DK, Guhl JF, Keane SP. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty for single compartment disease: clinical experience with an average four-year follow-up study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1983;176:233–238. - PubMed
-
- {'text': '', 'ref_index': 1, 'ids': [{'type': 'PubMed', 'value': '3440791', 'is_inner': True, 'url': 'https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3440791/'}]}
- Barrett WP, Scott RD. Revision of failed unicondylar unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1987;69:1328–1335. - PubMed
-
- {'text': '', 'ref_index': 1, 'ids': [{'type': 'DOI', 'value': '10.1054/arth.2000.9841', 'is_inner': False, 'url': 'https://doi.org/10.1054/arth.2000.9841'}, {'type': 'PubMed', 'value': '11112191', 'is_inner': True, 'url': 'https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11112191/'}]}
- Bohm I, Landsiedl F. Revision surgery after failed unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a study of 35 cases. J Arthroplasty. 2000;15:982–989. - PubMed
-
- {'text': '', 'ref_index': 1, 'ids': [{'type': 'DOI', 'value': '10.1016/S0883-5403(05)80120-2', 'is_inner': False, 'url': 'https://doi.org/10.1016/s0883-5403(05)80120-2'}, {'type': 'PubMed', 'value': '7798094', 'is_inner': True, 'url': 'https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7798094/'}]}
- Callahan CM, Drake BG, Heck DA, Dittus RS. Patient outcomes following unicompartmental or bicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis. J Arthroplasty. 1995;10:141–150. - PubMed
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Research Materials