SpringerLink
Log in

The aetiology of total knee arthroplasty failure influences the improvement in knee function

  • Knee Revision Surgery
  • Published:
Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Some indications for revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA), e.g. arthrofibrosis, have been identified to yield inferior results. The aim of this study was to analyse the results of revision TKA according to aetiology of TKA failure.

Patients and methods

The results of 97 consecutive revision TKA in 97 patients stratified according to the aetiology of primary TKA failure (periprosthetic infection, aseptic loosening, instability and arthrofibrosis), were compared using the Knee Society Score (KSS). The effect of patient age, gender, BMI, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification, interval to revision and the occurrence of complications on the outcome were also analysed.

Results

After a mean follow-up of 29 months, the KSS had significantly improved in all patient groups (p < 0.001). The analysis of variance among patient groups depicted no significant differences between preoperative KSS (p = 0.618) and postoperative KSS (p = 0.915), while the magnitude of pre- to postoperative improvement showed significant differences between the groups (p = 0.006). The aetiology of primary TKA failure had an independent influence on pre- to postoperative improvement (p = 0.014). Of the other factors analysed, only the ASA classification had an independent impact on postoperative KSS (p = 0.045).

Conclusion

The aetiology of TKA failure has an effect on the improvement in knee function from revision TKA. As no difference was observed between patient groups postoperatively, similar clinical results can be expected independent of the aetiology of primary TKA failure.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. 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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Baker P, Cowling P, Kurtz S, Jameson S, Gregg P, Deehan D (2012) Reason for revision influences early patient outcomes after aseptic knee revision. Clin Orthop Relat Res. doi:10.1007/s11999-012-2278-7

    Google Scholar 

  3. Greidanus NV, Peterson RC, Masri BA, Garbuz DS (2010) Quality of life outcomes in revision versus primary total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2010.04.026

    Google Scholar 

  4. Saleh KJ, Rand JA, McQueen DA (2003) Current status of revision total knee arthroplasty: how do we assess results? J Bone Joint Surg Am A 85(Suppl 1):S18–S20

    Google Scholar 

  5. Callaghan JJ, O’Rourke MR, Saleh KJ (2004) Why knees fail: lessons learned. J Arthroplasty 19:31–34 [Pii] S0883540304001330

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Jacobs MA, Hungerford DS, Krackow KA, Lennox DW (1988) Revision total knee arthroplasty for aseptic failure. Clin Orthop Relat Res 226:78–85

    Google Scholar 

  7. Lidgren L, Robertson O, Dahl A (2009) The Swedish National Knee Arthroplasty Register: annual report 2009. Lund University Hospital

  8. Meek RM, Dunlop D, Garbuz DS, McGraw R, Greidanus NV, Masri BA (2004) Patient satisfaction and functional status after aseptic versus septic revision total knee arthroplasty using the PROSTALAC articulating spacer. J Arthroplasty 19:874–879 [Pii] S0883540304003493

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Barrack RL, Engh G, Rorabeck C, Sawhney J, Woolfrey M (2000) Patient satisfaction and outcome after septic versus aseptic revision total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 15:990–993. doi:10.1054/arth.2000.16504

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Ghanem E, Restrepo C, Joshi A, Hozack W, Sharkey P, Parvizi J (2007) Periprosthetic infection does not preclude good outcome for revision arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 461:54–59. doi:10.1097/BLO.0b013e318073c246

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Pun SY, Ries MD (2008) Effect of gender and preoperative diagnosis on results of revision total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 466:2701–2705. doi:10.1007/s11999-008-0451-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Hardeman F, Londers J, Favril A, Witvrouw E, Bellemans J, Victor J (2012) Predisposing factors which are relevant for the clinical outcome after revision total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Off J ESSKA 20:1049–1056. doi:10.1007/s00167-011-1624-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Malviya A, Brewster NT, Bettinson K, Holland JP, Weir DJ, Deehan DJ (2011) Functional outcome following aseptic single-stage revision knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Off J ESSKA. doi:10.1007/s00167-011-1786-4

    Google Scholar 

  14. Haidukewych GJ, Jacofsky DJ, Pagnano MW, Trousdale RT (2005) Functional results after revision of well-fixed components for stiffness after primary total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 20:133–138

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Ritter MA, Eizember LE, Fechtman RW, Keating EM, Faris PM (1991) Revision total knee arthroplasty. A survival analysis. J Arthroplasty 6:351–356

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Saleh KJ, Dykes DC, Tweedie RL, Mohamed K, Ravichandran A, Saleh RM, Gioe TJ, Heck DA (2002) Functional outcome after total knee arthroplasty revision: a meta-analysis. J Arthroplasty 17:967–977. doi:10.1054/arth.2002.35823

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Dahm DL, Barnes SA, Harrington JR, Berry DJ (2007) Patient reported activity after revision total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 22:106–110. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2007.03.030

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Singh JA, Gabriel SE, Lewallen DG (2011) Higher body mass index is not associated with worse pain outcomes after primary or revision total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 26(3):366–374. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2010.02.006

  19. Ritter MA, Berend ME, Harty LD, Davis KE, Meding JB, Keating EM (2004) Predicting range of motion after revision total knee arthroplasty: clustering and log-linear regression analyses. J Arthroplasty 19:338–343 [Pii] S0883540303005783

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Singh JA, O’Byrne MM, Harmsen WS, Lewallen DG (2010) Predictors of moderate–severe functional limitation 2 and 5 years after revision total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 25:1091–1095, 1095, e1091–1094. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2009.07.020

    Google Scholar 

  21. Callaghan JJ, O’Rourke MR, Liu SS (2005) The role of implant constraint in revision total knee arthroplasty: not too little, not too much. J Arthroplasty 20:41–43. doi:S0883540305001580

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Vince KG (2003) Why knees fail. J Arthroplasty 18:39–44. doi:10.1054/arth.2003.50102

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Suarez J, Griffin W, Springer B, Fehring T, Mason JB, Odum S (2008) Why do revision knee arthroplasties fail? J Arthroplasty 23:99–103. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2008.04.020

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Patil N, Lee K, Huddleston JI, Harris AH, Goodman SB Aseptic versus septic revision total knee arthroplasty: patient satisfaction, outcome and quality of life improvement. Knee 17:200–203. doi: 10.1016/j.knee.2009.09.001

  25. Peters CL, Erickson JA, Gililland JM (2009) Clinical and radiographic results of 184 consecutive revision total knee arthroplasties placed with modular cementless stems. J Arthroplasty 24:48–53. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2009.04.033

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University Hospital Ulm, Oberer Eselsberg 45, 89081, Ulm, Germany

    Ralf Bieger, Thomas Kappe, Christian R. Fraitzl & Heiko Reichel

Authors
  1. Ralf Bieger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Thomas Kappe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Christian R. Fraitzl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Heiko Reichel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ralf Bieger.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bieger, R., Kappe, T., Fraitzl, C.R. et al. The aetiology of total knee arthroplasty failure influences the improvement in knee function. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 133, 237–241 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-012-1647-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-012-1647-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation