Impact of time to revision total knee arthroplasty on outcomes following aseptic failure.

IF 4.1 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS Knee Surgery & Related Research Pub Date : 2023-05-30 DOI:10.1186/s43019-023-00191-5
Mackenzie A Roof, Shankar Narayanan, Nathan Lorentz, Vinay K Aggarwal, Morteza Meftah, Ran Schwarzkopf
{"title":"Impact of time to revision total knee arthroplasty on outcomes following aseptic failure.","authors":"Mackenzie A Roof,&nbsp;Shankar Narayanan,&nbsp;Nathan Lorentz,&nbsp;Vinay K Aggarwal,&nbsp;Morteza Meftah,&nbsp;Ran Schwarzkopf","doi":"10.1186/s43019-023-00191-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Prior studies have demonstrated an association between time to revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) and indication; however, the impact of early versus late revision on post-operative outcomes has not been reported.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A retrospective, observational study examined patients who underwent unilateral, aseptic rTKA at an academic orthopedic hospital between 6/2011 and 4/2020 with > 1-year of follow-up. Patients were early revisions if they were revised within 2 years of primary TKA (pTKA) or late revisions if revised after greater than 2 years. Patient demographics, surgical factors, and post-operative outcomes were compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>470 rTKA were included (199 early, 271 late). Early rTKA patients were younger by 2.5 years (p = 0.002). The predominant indications for early rTKA were instability (28.6%) and arthrofibrosis/stiffness (26.6%), and the predominant indications for late rTKA were aseptic loosening (45.8%) and instability (26.2%; p < 0.001). Late rTKA had longer operative times (119.20 ± 51.94 vs. 103.93 ± 44.66 min; p < 0.001). There were no differences in rTKA type, disposition, hospital length of stay, all-cause 90-day emergency department visits and readmissions, reoperations, and number of re-revisions.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Aseptic rTKA performed before 2 years had different indications but demonstrated similar outcomes to those performed later. Early revisions had shorter surgical times, which could be attributed to differences in rTKA indication.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>III, retrospective observational analysis.</p>","PeriodicalId":17886,"journal":{"name":"Knee Surgery & Related Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10230807/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Knee Surgery & Related Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s43019-023-00191-5","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

Introduction: Prior studies have demonstrated an association between time to revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) and indication; however, the impact of early versus late revision on post-operative outcomes has not been reported.

Materials and methods: A retrospective, observational study examined patients who underwent unilateral, aseptic rTKA at an academic orthopedic hospital between 6/2011 and 4/2020 with > 1-year of follow-up. Patients were early revisions if they were revised within 2 years of primary TKA (pTKA) or late revisions if revised after greater than 2 years. Patient demographics, surgical factors, and post-operative outcomes were compared.

Results: 470 rTKA were included (199 early, 271 late). Early rTKA patients were younger by 2.5 years (p = 0.002). The predominant indications for early rTKA were instability (28.6%) and arthrofibrosis/stiffness (26.6%), and the predominant indications for late rTKA were aseptic loosening (45.8%) and instability (26.2%; p < 0.001). Late rTKA had longer operative times (119.20 ± 51.94 vs. 103.93 ± 44.66 min; p < 0.001). There were no differences in rTKA type, disposition, hospital length of stay, all-cause 90-day emergency department visits and readmissions, reoperations, and number of re-revisions.

Conclusions: Aseptic rTKA performed before 2 years had different indications but demonstrated similar outcomes to those performed later. Early revisions had shorter surgical times, which could be attributed to differences in rTKA indication.

Level of evidence: III, retrospective observational analysis.

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
无菌失败后翻修全膝关节置换术时间对预后的影响。
先前的研究已经证明翻修全膝关节置换术(rTKA)的时间与适应症之间存在关联;然而,早期和晚期翻修对术后结果的影响尚未见报道。材料和方法:一项回顾性观察性研究调查了2011年6月至2020年4月在一家学术骨科医院接受单侧无菌rTKA手术的患者,随访时间超过1年。如果患者在2年内进行原发性TKA (pTKA)翻修,则进行早期翻修;如果患者在2年后进行翻修,则进行晚期翻修。比较患者人口统计学、手术因素和术后结果。结果:共纳入rTKA 470例(早期199例,晚期271例)。早期rTKA患者年轻2.5岁(p = 0.002)。早期rTKA的主要适应症是不稳定(28.6%)和关节纤维化/僵硬(26.6%),晚期rTKA的主要适应症是无菌性松动(45.8%)和不稳定(26.2%);结论:2岁前进行的无菌rTKA有不同的适应症,但结果与之后进行的相似。早期改型手术时间较短,这可能归因于rTKA适应症的差异。证据水平:III级,回顾性观察性分析。
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
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
A novel practical method to predict anterior cruciate ligament hamstring graft size using preoperative MRI Evaluating the accuracy and relevance of ChatGPT responses to frequently asked questions regarding total knee replacement Phenotype-considered kinematically aligned total knee arthroplasty for windswept-deformity-associated osteoarthritis: surgical strategy and clinical outcomes Analysis of radiographic factors affecting the significant differences in knee alignment between hip-to-talus and hip-to-calcaneus radiographs after opening-wedge high tibial osteotomy Ramp lesion in anterior cruciate ligament injury: a review of the anatomy, biomechanics, epidemiology, and diagnosis.
×
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