Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Multicenter Study
. 2013 Jul;471(7):2296-302.
doi: 10.1007/s11999-013-2940-8. Epub 2013 Mar 30.

Reason for revision TKA predicts clinical outcome: prospective evaluation of 150 consecutive patients with 2-years followup

Robin W T M van Kempen  1 , Janneke J P Schimmel, Gijs G van Hellemondt, Hilde Vandenneucker, Ate B Wymenga
Affiliations
Multicenter Study

Reason for revision TKA predicts clinical outcome: prospective evaluation of 150 consecutive patients with 2-years followup

Robin W T M van Kempen et al. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013 Jul.

Abstract

Background: There is limited knowledge regarding the relationship between the reason for revising a TKA and the clinical outcome in terms of satisfaction, pain, and function with time.

Questions/purposes: In a cohort of patients receiving a fully revised TKA, we hypothesized (1) outcomes would differ according to reason for revision at 2 years, (2) outcomes would improve gradually during those 2 years, (3) rates of complications differ depending on the reason for revision, and (4) patients with complications have lower scores.

Methods: We studied a prospective cohort of 150 patients receiving a fully revised TKA using a single implant system in two high-volume centers at 24 months of followup. VAS satisfaction, VAS pain, The Knee Society Scoring System(©) (KSS) clinical and functional scores, and complication rate were correlated with their reasons for revision, including septic loosening, aseptic loosening, component malposition, instability, and stiffness.

Results: The aseptic loosening group showed better outcomes compared with the instability, malposition, and septic loosening groups, which showed intermediate results (p < 0.05). The stiffness group performed significantly worse on all outcome measures. The outcome for patients with a complication, after treatment of the complication, was less favorable.

Conclusions: The reason for revision TKA predicts clinical outcomes. Satisfaction, pain reduction, and functional improvement are better and complication rates are lower after revision TKA for aseptic loosening than for other causes of failure. For component malposition, instability, and septic loosening groups, there may be more pain and a higher complication rate. For stiffness, the outcomes are less favorable in all scores.

Level of evidence: Level III, prognostic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
A graph shows the VAS satisfaction scores for the separate reasons for revision with time. The VAS score for satisfaction was dependent of the reason for revision (p = 0.006).
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
The VAS pain scores for the separate reasons for revision with time are shown. The VAS score for pain was dependent of the reason for revision (p = 0.002) and time (p < 0.001). * = significant improvement.
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
The KSS clinical scores for the separate reasons for revision with time are shown. The KSS clinical score was dependent of the reason for revision (p < 0.001) and time (p < 0.001). * = significant improvement.
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
The KSS functional scores for the separate reasons for revision with time are shown. A significant interaction of time and reason for revision was found (p = 0.010).
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
A graph shows ROM for the separate reasons for revision with time. A significant interaction of time and reason for revision was found (p = 0.001).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

References

    1. Baker P, Cowling P, Kurtz S, Jameson S, Gregg P, Deehan D. Reason for revision influences early patient outcomes after aseptic knee revision. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;470:2244–2252. doi: 10.1007/s11999-012-2278-7. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Brander V, Gondek S, Martin E, Stulberg SD. Pain and depression influence outcome 5 years after knee replacement surgery. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;464:21–26. - PubMed
    1. Elson DW, Brenkel IJ. A conservative approach is feasible in unexplained pain after knee replacement: a selected cohort study. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007;89:1042–1045. - PubMed
    1. Fosco M, Filanti M, Amendola L, Savarino LM, Tigani D. Total knee arthroplasty in stiff knee compared with flexible knees. Musculoskelet Surg. 2011;95:7–12. doi: 10.1007/s12306-011-0099-6. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ghomrawi HM, Kane RL, Eberly LE, Bershadsky B, Saleh KJ, North American Knee Arthroplasty Revision (NAKAR) Study Group Patterns of functional improvement after revision knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91:2838–2845. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.H.00782. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms