S'abonner

Have the frequency of and reasons for revision total knee arthroplasty changed since 2000? Comparison of two cohorts from the same hospital: 255 cases (2013–2016) and 68 cases (1991–1998) - 29/05/19

Doi : 10.1016/j.otsr.2019.01.025 
Julien Pietrzak a, b, , Harold Common c, Henri Migaud a, b, Gilles Pasquier a, b, Julien Girard a, b, Sophie Putman a, b
a Université Lille Nord de France, 59000 Lille, France 
b Service d’orthopédie, Hôpital Salengro, CHRU de Lille, place de Verdun, 59037 Lille cedex, France 
c Service d’orthopédie, CHU Ponchaillou, Université de Rennes 1, 2, rue Henri-Guilloux, 35000 Rennes, France 

Corresponding author at: Service d’orthopédie, Hôpital Salengro, CHRU de Lille, place de Verdun, 59037 Lille, France.Service d’orthopédie, Hôpital Salengro, CHRU de Lilleplace de VerdunLille59037France

Bienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
Article gratuit.

Connectez-vous pour en bénéficier!

Abstract

Introduction

The number of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) revisions is expected to increase 601% in the United States between 2005 and 2030. This type of information is not available in France, and the last national study on this topic was done in 2000. This led us to perform a comparative study to determine if 1) the frequency of TKA revisions has increased and 2) the reasons for reoperation have changed relative to data gathered in 2000 at a single hospital in France.

Hypothesis

The frequency of TKA revision has increased between the two studies, performed 15 years apart.

Material and methods

In this retrospective observational single-center study (January 2013 to December 2016), all patients with a TKA who were reoperated with or without any component change were included. This cohort was compared to our historical cohort defined in 2000 of 68 TKA reoperations between January 1991 and January 1998. The reasons for revision were determined by consulting computerized patient records to find the disease history, clinical examinations, imaging findings, laboratory tests and the surgery report. Cases due to periprosthetic fractures, infection and skin-related complications were excluded in order to be consistent with the indications of the historical cohort.

Results

Between 2013 and 2016, 349 TKA revisions were performed, and 255 met the inclusion criteria. Note that the historical cohort had 68 cases. The mean time elapsed between the primary TKA and revision procedure was 5.3 years [34 days to 31 years]. Eight reasons for reoperation were identified. Aseptic loosening (85 cases (33.3%)), stiffness (70 cases (27.5%)), tibiofemoral laxity (39 cases (15.3%)) and patellar complications (34 cases (13.3%)) were the four most common reasons for reoperation.

The frequency has changed over time: relative to 2000, the annual frequency increased by a factor of 6.5. The reasons have also changed over time: there was an increase in revisions for aseptic loosening (33.3% vs. 23.5%), stiffness (27.5% vs. 20.6%) and knee joint laxity (15.3% vs. 10.3%). Conversely, there was a reduction in revisions for patellar complications (13.3% vs. 26.5%), unexplained pain (0.4% vs. 8.8%) and patellar clunk syndrome (1.2% vs. 4.4%).

Discussion

The number of TKA revisions has increased by a factor of 6.5, with aseptic loosening still being the most common reason. The number of revisions performed for stiffness and knee joint laxity have increased. Fewer revisions are being done for unexplained pain because surgeons are now better able to determine the cause of TKA-related pain. There were fewer patella-related complications because of technical progress. The data generated from our single-center study are consistent with current published data.

Level of evidence

II, comparative study.

Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.

Keywords : Revision of total knee arthroplasty, Loosening, Stiffness, Laxity


Plan


© 2019  Elsevier Masson SAS. Tous droits réservés.
Ajouter à ma bibliothèque Retirer de ma bibliothèque Imprimer
Export

    Export citations

  • Fichier

  • Contenu

Vol 105 - N° 4

P. 639-645 - juin 2019 Retour au numéro
Article précédent Article précédent
  • Negative Influence of femoral nerve block on quadriceps strength recovery following total knee replacement: A prospective randomized trial
  • Michèle Angers, Étienne L. Belzile, Jessica Vachon, Philippe Beauchamp-Chalifour, Stéphane Pelet
| Article suivant Article suivant
  • Haematogenous prosthetic knee infections: Prospective cohort study of 58 patients
  • Thomas Stévignon, Antoine Mouton, Vanina Meyssonnier, Younes Kerroumi, Alexandre Yazigi, Thomas Aubert, Luc Lhotellier, Vincent Le Strat, Dorick Passeron, Wilfrid Graff, Valérie Zeller, Béate Heym, Simon Marmor

Bienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.

Mon compte


Plateformes Elsevier Masson

Déclaration CNIL

EM-CONSULTE.COM est déclaré à la CNIL, déclaration n° 1286925.

En application de la loi nº78-17 du 6 janvier 1978 relative à l'informatique, aux fichiers et aux libertés, vous disposez des droits d'opposition (art.26 de la loi), d'accès (art.34 à 38 de la loi), et de rectification (art.36 de la loi) des données vous concernant. Ainsi, vous pouvez exiger que soient rectifiées, complétées, clarifiées, mises à jour ou effacées les informations vous concernant qui sont inexactes, incomplètes, équivoques, périmées ou dont la collecte ou l'utilisation ou la conservation est interdite.
Les informations personnelles concernant les visiteurs de notre site, y compris leur identité, sont confidentielles.
Le responsable du site s'engage sur l'honneur à respecter les conditions légales de confidentialité applicables en France et à ne pas divulguer ces informations à des tiers.


Tout le contenu de ce site: Copyright © 2024 Elsevier, ses concédants de licence et ses contributeurs. Tout les droits sont réservés, y compris ceux relatifs à l'exploration de textes et de données, a la formation en IA et aux technologies similaires. Pour tout contenu en libre accès, les conditions de licence Creative Commons s'appliquent.