Revision total knee replacement versus primary total knee replacement: a matched cohort study

Paul Stirling; Scott Middleton; Ivan Brenkel; Phil Walmsley

doi:10.1302/2046-3758.13.BJO-2019-0001.R1

Revision total knee replacement versus primary total knee replacement: a matched cohort study

Paul Stirling, Scott Middleton, Ivan Brenkel, Phil Walmsley

School of Medicine

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

Abstract

Introduction

The primary aim of this study was to describe a baseline comparison of early knee-specific functional outcomes following revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) using metaphyseal sleeves with a matched cohort of patients undergoing primary TKA. The secondary aim was to compare incidence of complications and length of stay (LOS) between the two groups.

Methods

Patients undergoing revision TKA for all diagnoses between 2009 and 2016 had patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) collected prospectively. PROMs consisted of the American Knee Society Score (AKSS) and Short-Form 12 (SF-12). The study cohort was identified retrospectively and demographics were collected. The cohort was matched to a control group of patients undergoing primary TKA.

Results

Overall, 72 patients underwent revision TKA and were matched with 72 primary TKAs with a mean follow-up of 57 months (standard deviation (SD) 20 months). The only significant difference in postoperative PROMs was a worse AKSS pain score in the revision group (36 vs 44, p = 0.002); however, these patients still produced an improvement in the pain score. There was no significant difference in improvement of AKSS or SF-12 between the two groups. LOS (9.3 days vs 4.6 days) and operation time (1 hour 56 minutes vs 1 hour 7 minutes) were significantly higher in the revision group (p < 0.001). Patients undergoing revision were significantly more likely to require intraoperative lateral release and postoperative urinary catheterisation (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

This matched-cohort study provides results of revision TKA using modern techniques and implants and outlines what results patients can expect to achieve using primary TKA as a control. This should be useful to clinicians counselling patients for revision TKA.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	29-34
Journal	Bone & Joint Open
Volume	1
Issue number	3
Early online date	13 Mar 2020
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1302/2046-3758.13.BJO-2019-0001.R1
Publication status	E-pub ahead of print - 13 Mar 2020

Access to Document

10.1302/2046-3758.13.BJO-2019-0001.R1Licence: CC BY-NC-ND

Stirling_2020_BJO_Knee_CC
Copyright © 2020 Author(s) et al. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) licence (https:// creativecommons. org/ licenses/ by-nc-nd/4. 0/), which permits the copying and redistribution of the work only, and provided the original author and source are credited.
Final published version, 163 KBLicence: CC BY-NC-ND

Cite this

@article{5a722e3b88a049c2a260d2355183a1b7,

title = "Revision total knee replacement versus primary total knee replacement: a matched cohort study",

abstract = "IntroductionThe primary aim of this study was to describe a baseline comparison of early knee-specific functional outcomes following revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) using metaphyseal sleeves with a matched cohort of patients undergoing primary TKA. The secondary aim was to compare incidence of complications and length of stay (LOS) between the two groups.MethodsPatients undergoing revision TKA for all diagnoses between 2009 and 2016 had patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) collected prospectively. PROMs consisted of the American Knee Society Score (AKSS) and Short-Form 12 (SF-12). The study cohort was identified retrospectively and demographics were collected. The cohort was matched to a control group of patients undergoing primary TKA.ResultsOverall, 72 patients underwent revision TKA and were matched with 72 primary TKAs with a mean follow-up of 57 months (standard deviation (SD) 20 months). The only significant difference in postoperative PROMs was a worse AKSS pain score in the revision group (36 vs 44, p = 0.002); however, these patients still produced an improvement in the pain score. There was no significant difference in improvement of AKSS or SF-12 between the two groups. LOS (9.3 days vs 4.6 days) and operation time (1 hour 56 minutes vs 1 hour 7 minutes) were significantly higher in the revision group (p < 0.001). Patients undergoing revision were significantly more likely to require intraoperative lateral release and postoperative urinary catheterisation (p < 0.001).ConclusionThis matched-cohort study provides results of revision TKA using modern techniques and implants and outlines what results patients can expect to achieve using primary TKA as a control. This should be useful to clinicians counselling patients for revision TKA.",

author = "Paul Stirling and Scott Middleton and Ivan Brenkel and Phil Walmsley",

year = "2020",

month = mar,

day = "13",

doi = "10.1302/2046-3758.13.BJO-2019-0001.R1",

language = "English",

volume = "1",

pages = "29--34",

journal = "Bone & Joint Open",

issn = "2633-1462",

publisher = "British Editorial Society of Bone and Joint Surgery",

number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Revision total knee replacement versus primary total knee replacement

T2 - a matched cohort study

AU - Stirling, Paul

AU - Middleton, Scott

AU - Brenkel, Ivan

AU - Walmsley, Phil

PY - 2020/3/13

Y1 - 2020/3/13

N2 - IntroductionThe primary aim of this study was to describe a baseline comparison of early knee-specific functional outcomes following revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) using metaphyseal sleeves with a matched cohort of patients undergoing primary TKA. The secondary aim was to compare incidence of complications and length of stay (LOS) between the two groups.MethodsPatients undergoing revision TKA for all diagnoses between 2009 and 2016 had patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) collected prospectively. PROMs consisted of the American Knee Society Score (AKSS) and Short-Form 12 (SF-12). The study cohort was identified retrospectively and demographics were collected. The cohort was matched to a control group of patients undergoing primary TKA.ResultsOverall, 72 patients underwent revision TKA and were matched with 72 primary TKAs with a mean follow-up of 57 months (standard deviation (SD) 20 months). The only significant difference in postoperative PROMs was a worse AKSS pain score in the revision group (36 vs 44, p = 0.002); however, these patients still produced an improvement in the pain score. There was no significant difference in improvement of AKSS or SF-12 between the two groups. LOS (9.3 days vs 4.6 days) and operation time (1 hour 56 minutes vs 1 hour 7 minutes) were significantly higher in the revision group (p < 0.001). Patients undergoing revision were significantly more likely to require intraoperative lateral release and postoperative urinary catheterisation (p < 0.001).ConclusionThis matched-cohort study provides results of revision TKA using modern techniques and implants and outlines what results patients can expect to achieve using primary TKA as a control. This should be useful to clinicians counselling patients for revision TKA.

AB - IntroductionThe primary aim of this study was to describe a baseline comparison of early knee-specific functional outcomes following revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) using metaphyseal sleeves with a matched cohort of patients undergoing primary TKA. The secondary aim was to compare incidence of complications and length of stay (LOS) between the two groups.MethodsPatients undergoing revision TKA for all diagnoses between 2009 and 2016 had patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) collected prospectively. PROMs consisted of the American Knee Society Score (AKSS) and Short-Form 12 (SF-12). The study cohort was identified retrospectively and demographics were collected. The cohort was matched to a control group of patients undergoing primary TKA.ResultsOverall, 72 patients underwent revision TKA and were matched with 72 primary TKAs with a mean follow-up of 57 months (standard deviation (SD) 20 months). The only significant difference in postoperative PROMs was a worse AKSS pain score in the revision group (36 vs 44, p = 0.002); however, these patients still produced an improvement in the pain score. There was no significant difference in improvement of AKSS or SF-12 between the two groups. LOS (9.3 days vs 4.6 days) and operation time (1 hour 56 minutes vs 1 hour 7 minutes) were significantly higher in the revision group (p < 0.001). Patients undergoing revision were significantly more likely to require intraoperative lateral release and postoperative urinary catheterisation (p < 0.001).ConclusionThis matched-cohort study provides results of revision TKA using modern techniques and implants and outlines what results patients can expect to achieve using primary TKA as a control. This should be useful to clinicians counselling patients for revision TKA.

U2 - 10.1302/2046-3758.13.BJO-2019-0001.R1

DO - 10.1302/2046-3758.13.BJO-2019-0001.R1

M3 - Article

SN - 2633-1462

VL - 1

SP - 29

EP - 34

JO - Bone & Joint Open

JF - Bone & Joint Open

IS - 3

ER -

Revision total knee replacement versus primary total knee replacement: a matched cohort study

Abstract

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this