Analysis of the causes of revision total knee arthroplasty
10.3760/cma.j.cn121113-20230613-00328
- VernacularTitle:全膝关节置换术后翻修原因分析
- Author:
Jian JIN
1
;
Liyi ZHANG
;
Wulin KANG
;
Xuan GAO
;
Jianhao LIN
;
Zhichang LI
Author Information
1. 北京大学人民医院骨关节科，北京 100044
- Keywords:
Knee joint;
Reoperation;
Prosthesis-related infections;
Joint instability;
Aseptic loosening
- From:
Chinese Journal of Orthopaedics
2024;44(4):217-225
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To assess causes for revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in China using the data of revision TKA in the past 15 years in our single center andcompare the differences in survival time, operation time and blood loss among different revision reasons.Methods:Data of 337 patients (345 knees) with revision TKAs at our institution from January 2007 to December 2021 (15 years) were retrospectively analyzed. The included population consists of 57 males and 288 females. The causes for first revision TKA were identified and compared according to the time of revision surgery as early (up to 2 years) and late revision (more than 2 years). The reason for revision before 2012 and after 2012 was also compared. Furthermore, the differences of survival time, operation time and blood loss among different revision reasons were compared.Results:The most common reasons for revision of knee joints in 345 cases were periprosthetic infection (133 knees, 38.6%), followed by aseptic loosening (97 knees, 28.1%) and joint instability (35 knees, 10.1%). Early revisions were performed in 171 knees (49.6%), while late revisions were performed in 174 knees (50.4%). Periprosthetic infection (96 knees, 56.1%) and aseptic loosening (86 knees, 49.4%) were the most common reasons for early and late revisions, respectively. There were 59 revisions performed before 2012 and 286 revisions performed after 2012, with periprosthetic infection being the main reason for revision in both groups. The percentage of revisions due to infection decreased from 64.4% before 2012 to 33.2% after 2012, and this difference was statistically significant (χ 2=18.790, P<0.001). The proportion of revisions due to aseptic loosening was 15.3% before 2012, which was significantly lower than the proportion of 30.8% after 2012 (χ 2=5.083, P=0.024). The median survival time of the prostheses in the included patients was 30 months, with shorter survival time observed in patients with stiffness, patellar complications, and periprosthetic infection, and longer survival time observed in patients with polyethylene wear and aseptic loosening. There were significant differences in operation time and blood loss among different reasons for revision ( P<0.001). Conclusion:In our specialized arthroplasty center periprosthesis infection was the most common reason for revision. Periprosthesis infection and aseptic loosening needed to be considered for early or late-stage revision. With the development of technique of total knee arthroplasty, the proportion of periprosthesis infection is decreasing, while the incidence of aseptic loosening is increasing.
