Risk factors associated with re-revision following revision total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review.

IF 2.8 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS Bone & Joint Open Pub Date : 2024-08-07 DOI:10.1302/2633-1462.58.BJO-2024-0073.R1
Julius T Hald, Ulrik K Knudsen, Michael M Petersen, Martin Lindberg-Larsen, Anders B El-Galaly, Anders Odgaard
{"title":"Risk factors associated with re-revision following revision total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review.","authors":"Julius T Hald, Ulrik K Knudsen, Michael M Petersen, Martin Lindberg-Larsen, Anders B El-Galaly, Anders Odgaard","doi":"10.1302/2633-1462.58.BJO-2024-0073.R1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and bias evaluation of the current literature to create an overview of risk factors for re-revision following revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic search of MEDLINE and Embase was completed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The studies were required to include a population of index rTKAs. Primary or secondary outcomes had to be re-revision. The association between preoperative factors and the effect on the risk for re-revision was also required to be reported by the studies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The search yielded 4,847 studies, of which 15 were included. A majority of the studies were retrospective cohorts or registry studies. In total, 26 significant risk factors for re-revision were identified. Of these, the following risk factors were consistent across multiple studies: age at the time of index revision, male sex, index revision being partial revision, and index revision due to infection. Modifiable risk factors were opioid use, BMI > 40 kg/m<sup>2</sup>, and anaemia. History of one-stage revision due to infection was associated with the highest risk of re-revision.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Overall, 26 risk factors have been associated with an increased risk of re-revision following rTKA. However, various levels of methodological bias were found in the studies. Future studies should ensure valid comparisons by including patients with identical indications and using clear definitions for accurate assessments.</p>","PeriodicalId":34103,"journal":{"name":"Bone & Joint Open","volume":"5 8","pages":"644-651"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11303039/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bone & Joint Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1302/2633-1462.58.BJO-2024-0073.R1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aims: The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and bias evaluation of the current literature to create an overview of risk factors for re-revision following revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA).

Methods: A systematic search of MEDLINE and Embase was completed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The studies were required to include a population of index rTKAs. Primary or secondary outcomes had to be re-revision. The association between preoperative factors and the effect on the risk for re-revision was also required to be reported by the studies.

Results: The search yielded 4,847 studies, of which 15 were included. A majority of the studies were retrospective cohorts or registry studies. In total, 26 significant risk factors for re-revision were identified. Of these, the following risk factors were consistent across multiple studies: age at the time of index revision, male sex, index revision being partial revision, and index revision due to infection. Modifiable risk factors were opioid use, BMI > 40 kg/m2, and anaemia. History of one-stage revision due to infection was associated with the highest risk of re-revision.

Conclusion: Overall, 26 risk factors have been associated with an increased risk of re-revision following rTKA. However, various levels of methodological bias were found in the studies. Future studies should ensure valid comparisons by including patients with identical indications and using clear definitions for accurate assessments.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
与翻修全膝关节置换术后再次手术相关的风险因素:系统性综述。
目的:本研究旨在对现有文献进行系统性回顾和偏倚评估,以了解翻修全膝关节置换术(rTKA)后再次复发的风险因素:方法:根据系统综述和元分析首选报告项目(PRISMA)指南,对 MEDLINE 和 Embase 进行了系统检索。研究必须包括指数 rTKAs 患者。主要或次要结果必须是再次手术。研究还需报告术前因素与再次手术风险之间的关联:结果:搜索结果显示有 4,847 项研究,其中 15 项被纳入。大部分研究为回顾性队列或登记研究。总共发现了 26 个导致再次手术的重要风险因素。其中,以下风险因素在多项研究中都是一致的:指数翻修时的年龄、男性、指数翻修为部分翻修、指数翻修因感染所致。可改变的风险因素包括使用阿片类药物、体重指数大于 40 kg/m2 和贫血。因感染导致的一期翻修史与再次翻修的最高风险相关:总的来说,有26个风险因素与rTKA术后再次翻修风险增加有关。结论:总体而言,有26个风险因素与rTKA术后再次手术风险的增加有关。然而,在这些研究中发现了不同程度的方法学偏倚。未来的研究应纳入适应症相同的患者,并使用明确的定义进行准确评估,以确保比较的有效性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Bone & Joint Open
Bone & Joint Open ORTHOPEDICS-
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊最新文献
Arthroscopic Bankart repair versus arthroscopic Latarjet for anterior shoulder instability in adolescents. Revisiting the radiological signs for the first metatarsal pronation assessment. Clinical outcomes after extra-articular resection of hip joint tumour using a custom-made osteotomy guide and 3D-printed endoprosthesis with posterior column preserved. Uncompromised total knee arthroplasty function after distal femoral osteotomy. Outcomes of external versus internal fixation for traumatic lower limb fractures in low- and middle-income countries.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1