Volume 6, Issue 6, December 2018, Page: 162-166
Factors Associated with a Short-Term Revision of Total Knee Arthroplasty
Gómez Cáceres Abel, Department of Orthopedic Surgery and Traumatology, Regional University Hospital of Málaga, Málaga, Spain
Carnero Martín de Soto Pablo, Arthrosport Zaragoza, Pilar Clinic, Zaragoza, Spain
Fernández de Arróyabe Sáez de Ojer Naiara, Department of Orthopedic Surgery and Traumatology, Regional University Hospital of Málaga, Málaga, Spain
Montes Molinero David, Department of Orthopedic Surgery and Traumatology, Regional University Hospital of Málaga, Málaga, Spain
Aguiar García Francisco, Department of Orthopedic Surgery and Traumatology, Regional University Hospital of Málaga, Málaga, Spain
García de Quevedo Puerta David, Department of Orthopedic Surgery and Traumatology, Regional University Hospital of Málaga, Málaga, Spain
Received: Oct. 25, 2018;       Accepted: Nov. 13, 2018;       Published: Dec. 19, 2018
DOI: 10.11648/j.js.20180606.14      View  44      Downloads  12
Abstract
Background: To present the short-term complications that required revision surgery on total knee arthroplasty (TKAs) performed during the 2012-2013 period. Objective: To study the relation of complication appearance and type with the prosthesis model and surgical team experience. Methods: Study of patients undergoing TKA at our center between January 2012 and June 2013. Surgical teams were stratified according to the experience of the surgeon. Two different implants were utilized for this study. The following postoperative data were collected: indication for review, time of follow-up from the intervention to the indication for review (in months) and the reason for revision. A total of 322 TKAs were performed. The follow-up time from the placement of the first prosthesis was 35.48 ± 10.23 months. A revision was indicated for 60 of the 322 implanted prostheses (18.6%). The most frequent causes were aseptic loosening in 22 cases (37.9%), and anterior pain in 19 cases (32.8%). According to the prosthetic model, 11 revisions belonged to the A model (18.3%), and 49 (81%) to the B model. These results were statistically significant (p <0.001). Odds Ratio 5.78 (95% CI: 2.87-11.62). In teams with no expert in arthroplasty, the percentage of revision for instability was 8.3%; in teams with one expert, it was 4%; and in teams with two experts, it was 0%. Discussion: There is an increase in the number of reviews in knee arthroplasty surgery. The reasons for failure of total knee arthroplasty depend on several factors, including surgical techniques, implants, demographic variants, etc. The experience of the surgeon seems to influence the number of revisions. Patellofemoral kinematics also influences the evolution of total knee arthroplasty. One of the most important factors is the trochlear groove. Although the optimal troclear design has not been established. Conclusions: The prosthetic model seems to influence the survival of total knee arthroplasty. It is preferable that the surgical team always include a surgeon with expertise in knee arthroplasty.
Keywords
Revision, Total Knee Arthroplasty, Prothesis Model, Surgical Team Experience
To cite this article
Gómez Cáceres Abel, Carnero Martín de Soto Pablo, Fernández de Arróyabe Sáez de Ojer Naiara, Montes Molinero David, Aguiar García Francisco, García de Quevedo Puerta David, Factors Associated with a Short-Term Revision of Total Knee Arthroplasty, Journal of Surgery. Vol. 6, No. 6, 2018, pp. 162-166. doi: 10.11648/j.js.20180606.14
Copyright
Copyright © 2018 Authors retain the copyright of this article.
This article is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Reference
[1]
Callahan CM, Drake BG, Heck DA, Dittus RS. (1994) Patient outcomes following tricompartmental total knee replacement. A metaanalysis. JAMA. 271: 1349–1357.
[2]
Lavernia CJ, Guzman JF, Gachupin-Garcia A. (1997) Cost effectiveness and quality of life in knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 345: 134–139.
[3]
Kurtz SM, Ong K, Lau E, et al. (2007) Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89: 780.
[4]
Saleh KJ, Dykes DC, Tweedie RL, et al. (2002) Functional outcome after total knee arthroplasty revision: a meta-analysis. J Arthroplasty, 17: 967.
[5]
Baker P, Cowling P, Kurtz S, et al. (2012) Reason for revision influences early patient outcomes after aseptic knee revision. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 470: 2244.
[6]
Ong KL, Lau E, Suggs J, et al. (2010) Risk of subsequent revision after primary and revision total joint arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 468: 3070.
[7]
KurtzS, MowatF, OngK, etal. (2005) Prevalence of primary and revisión total hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 1990 through 2002. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 87: 1487.
[8]
Bozic K. (2005) CMS changes ICD9 and DRG codes for revision TJA. AAOS Bulletin, 3: 17–21.
[9]
Emmerson KP, Moran CG, Pinder IM. (1996) Survivorship analysis of the Kinematic Stabilizer total knee replacement: a 10- to 14-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 78; 441–445.
[10]
Fehring TK, Odum S, Griffin WL, Mason JB, Nadaud M. (2001) Early failures in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 392: 315–318.
[11]
Mulhall KJ, Ghomrawi HM, Scully S, Callaghan JJ, Saleh KJ. (2006) Current etiologies and modes of failure in total knee arthroplasty revision. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 446; 45–50.
[12]
Sharkey PF, Hozack WJ, Rothman RH, Shastri S, Jacoby SM. (2002) Insall Award paper. Why are total knee arthroplasties failing today? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 404: 7–13.
[13]
Australian Orthopaedic Association’s National Joint Registry, 2010. 
(aumentos demográficos).
[14]
Bourne RB, Maloney WJ, Wright JG. (2004) An AOA critical issue. The outcome of the 
outcomes movement. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 86: 633.
[15]
Math KR, Zaidi SF, Petchprapa C, Harwin SF. (2006) Imaging of total knee arthroplasty. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol. 10: 47-63.
[16]
Koh IJ, Cho WS, Choi NY, Kim TK; (2014) Kleos Korea Research Group. Causes, risk factors, and trends in failures after TKA in Korea over the past 5 years: a multicenter study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 472: 316-2.
[17]
Gonzalez MH, Mekhail AO. (2004) The failed total knee arthroplasty: evaluation and etiology. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 12; 436–446.
[18]
Vessely MB, Whaley AL, Harmsen WS, Schleck CD, Berry DJ. (2006) The Chitranjan Ranawat Award: Long-term survivorship and failure modes of 1000 cemented condylar total knee arthroplas- ties. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 452; 28–34.
[19]
Hossain F, Patel S, Haddad FS. (2010) Midterm assessment of causes and results of revision total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 468: 1221–1228.
[20]
Kulkarni SK, Freeman MA, Poal-Manresa JC, Asencio JI, Rodriguez JJ. (2000) The patellofemoral joint in total knee arthroplasty: is the design of the trochlea the critical factor? J Arthroplasty, 15: 424-9.
[21]
Hall J, Copp SN, Adelson WS, D'Lima DD, Colwell Jr CW. (2008) Extensor mechanism function in single-radius vs multiradius femoral components for total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty, 23: 216-9.
[22]
Jo AR, Song EK, Lee KB, Seo HY, Kim SK, Seon JK. (2014) A comparison of stability and clinical outcomes in single-radius versus multi-radius femoral design for total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty, 29: 2402-6.
[23]
Whiteside LA, Nakamura T. (2003) Effect of femoral component design on unre- surfaced patellas in knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 189-98.
[24]
Andriacchi TP, Yoder D, Conley A, Rosenberg A, Sum J, Galante JO. (1997) Patellofemoral design influences function following total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty, 12: 243e9.
[25]
Morris, A. (2001). The Association Between Hospital and Surgeon Procedure Volume and Outcomes of Total Hip Replacement in the United States Medicare Population: Health Policy Implications. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery-American Volume, 83(11), pp.1754-1755.
Browse journals by subject