Revision Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: Worse Than a Primary, But Better Than a Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty.

IF 3.4 2区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS Journal of Arthroplasty Pub Date : 2025-01-02 DOI:10.1016/j.arth.2024.12.026
Enrico M Forlenza, Robert A Burnett, Alexander J Acuña, Brett R Levine, Jeremy M Gililland, Craig J Della Valle
{"title":"Revision Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: Worse Than a Primary, But Better Than a Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty.","authors":"Enrico M Forlenza, Robert A Burnett, Alexander J Acuña, Brett R Levine, Jeremy M Gililland, Craig J Della Valle","doi":"10.1016/j.arth.2024.12.026","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Revision of a unicompartmental to a total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is often compared to primary TKA with regard to its technical difficulty and complication rates. We sought to compare medical and surgical complications following revision unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) to those following primary TKA and aseptic revision TKA.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A national administrative claims database was queried for patients undergoing revision UKA between 2010 and 2019. Patients undergoing revision of a UKA were matched to patients undergoing primary TKA and aseptic revision TKA based on age, sex, Elixhauser Comorbidity Index (ECI), payor status, and a history of obesity, osteoporosis, tobacco use, and alcohol use disorder. Revision-free survivorship as well as 2-year and 90-day complication rates were compared. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to determine the independent risk of medical and surgical complications.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 3,924 matched primary TKA, revision of a failed UKA, and aseptic revision TKA patients were included. Overall survivorship was 96.9% (95% CI [confidence interval] 95.9 to 97.8%) for primary TKA, 93.4% (95% CI 92.1 to 94.8%) for revision UKA, and 89.8% (95% CI 88.2 to 91.5%) for aseptic revision TKA at 2-year follow-up (P < 0.001). At two years, revision UKA patients had higher rates of aseptic loosening (2.2 versus 0.8%, P = 0.004), instability (2.4 versus 0.8%, P = 0.002), and mechanical failures (3.0 versus 1.5%, P = 0.012) than primary TKA patients. The 90-day complication rates were comparable between primary TKA and revision UKA patients (all P > 0.05); the risk of reoperation, acute kidney injury, wound dehiscence, hematoma, and transfusion were all higher in the revision TKA than in the revision UKA cohort (all P < 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Revision-free survivorship and arthroplasty-related complications at two years following revision UKA are lower than for primary TKA, but higher than for aseptic revision TKA, while medical complications are similar to those following primary TKA.</p>","PeriodicalId":51077,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Arthroplasty","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Arthroplasty","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2024.12.026","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Revision of a unicompartmental to a total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is often compared to primary TKA with regard to its technical difficulty and complication rates. We sought to compare medical and surgical complications following revision unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) to those following primary TKA and aseptic revision TKA.

Methods: A national administrative claims database was queried for patients undergoing revision UKA between 2010 and 2019. Patients undergoing revision of a UKA were matched to patients undergoing primary TKA and aseptic revision TKA based on age, sex, Elixhauser Comorbidity Index (ECI), payor status, and a history of obesity, osteoporosis, tobacco use, and alcohol use disorder. Revision-free survivorship as well as 2-year and 90-day complication rates were compared. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to determine the independent risk of medical and surgical complications.

Results: A total of 3,924 matched primary TKA, revision of a failed UKA, and aseptic revision TKA patients were included. Overall survivorship was 96.9% (95% CI [confidence interval] 95.9 to 97.8%) for primary TKA, 93.4% (95% CI 92.1 to 94.8%) for revision UKA, and 89.8% (95% CI 88.2 to 91.5%) for aseptic revision TKA at 2-year follow-up (P < 0.001). At two years, revision UKA patients had higher rates of aseptic loosening (2.2 versus 0.8%, P = 0.004), instability (2.4 versus 0.8%, P = 0.002), and mechanical failures (3.0 versus 1.5%, P = 0.012) than primary TKA patients. The 90-day complication rates were comparable between primary TKA and revision UKA patients (all P > 0.05); the risk of reoperation, acute kidney injury, wound dehiscence, hematoma, and transfusion were all higher in the revision TKA than in the revision UKA cohort (all P < 0.05).

Conclusion: Revision-free survivorship and arthroplasty-related complications at two years following revision UKA are lower than for primary TKA, but higher than for aseptic revision TKA, while medical complications are similar to those following primary TKA.

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
单腔翻修膝关节置换术:比初次翻修差,但比全膝关节置换术好。
背景:在技术难度和并发症发生率方面,单腔全膝关节置换术(TKA)的翻修常与原发性全膝关节置换术(TKA)进行比较。我们试图比较改良单室膝关节置换术(UKA)与原发全膝关节置换术和无菌全膝关节置换术后的内科和外科并发症。方法:查询国家行政索赔数据库,查询2010年至2019年期间接受修订UKA的患者。根据年龄、性别、Elixhauser合并症指数(ECI)、付款人状况以及肥胖、骨质疏松、吸烟和酒精使用障碍史,将接受UKA翻修的患者与接受原发性TKA和无菌翻修TKA的患者进行匹配。比较无修复的生存率以及2年和90天的并发症发生率。进行多变量logistic回归分析以确定内科和外科并发症的独立风险。结果:共纳入3924例匹配的原发性TKA、失败的UKA翻修和无菌TKA翻修患者。在2年随访中,原发性TKA的总生存率为96.9% (95% CI[置信区间]95.9 - 97.8%),改良型UKA的总生存率为93.4% (95% CI 92.1 - 94.8%),无菌改良型TKA的总生存率为89.8% (95% CI 88.2 - 91.5%) (P < 0.001)。在两年时,改良型UKA患者的无菌性松动率(2.2比0.8%,P = 0.004)、不稳定性(2.4比0.8%,P = 0.002)和机械故障(3.0比1.5%,P = 0.012)高于原发性TKA患者。原发性TKA和改良型UKA患者的90天并发症发生率具有可比性(P < 0.05);改良TKA组再手术、急性肾损伤、创面裂开、血肿、输血风险均高于改良UKA组(均P < 0.05)。结论:改良型TKA术后2年的无修补生存率和关节置换术相关并发症低于原发TKA,但高于无菌型TKA,而医学并发症与原发TKA后相似。
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
Journal of Arthroplasty
Journal of Arthroplasty 医学-整形外科
CiteScore
7.00
自引率
20.00%
发文量
734
审稿时长
48 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Arthroplasty brings together the clinical and scientific foundations for joint replacement. This peer-reviewed journal publishes original research and manuscripts of the highest quality from all areas relating to joint replacement or the treatment of its complications, including those dealing with clinical series and experience, prosthetic design, biomechanics, biomaterials, metallurgy, biologic response to arthroplasty materials in vivo and in vitro.
期刊最新文献
Critical Analysis of "Complication Rates are not Higher After Outpatient Versus Inpatient Fast-Track Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Propensity-Matched Prospective Comparative Study". Letter to the Editor on "Predictive Modeling of Medical- and Orthopaedic-Related 90-Day Readmissions Following Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty". Letter to the Editor Regarding: "Periprosthetic Fractures: A Rising Tide of Hip Arthroplasty Failure Noted in the American Joint Replacement Registry and the Preventative Role of Cemented Stems". Response to "Critical Analysis of "Complication Rates Are Not Higher After Outpatient Versus Inpatient Fast-Track Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Propensity-Matched Prospective Comparative Study". Response to Letter to the Editor on "Predictive Modeling of Medical- and Orthopaedic-Related 90-Day Readmissions Following Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty".
×
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