Arthrolysis versus revision arthroplasty for arthrofibrosis-related stiffness following total knee arthroplasty: comparison of medium- to long-term outcomes
10.3760/cma.j.cn115530-20250225-00083
- VernacularTitle:松解术与全假体翻修术治疗全膝关节置换术后关节纤维化所致僵硬的中长期疗效比较
- Author:
Zhisen GAO
1
;
Haoling DING
1
;
Tian GAO
1
;
Guoqiang ZHANG
1
;
Rui LI
1
;
Wei CHAI
1
Author Information
1. 解放军总医院第四医学中心骨科医学部，国家骨科与运动康复临床医学研究中心，北京 100048
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Arthroplasty, replacement, knee;
Knee joint;
Fibrosis;
Stiffness;
Revision arthroplasty;
Arthrolysis
- From:
Chinese Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma
2025;27(6):499-506
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To compare the mid- to long-term clinical outcomes of arthrolysis versus revision arthroplasty for arthrofibrosis-related stiffness following total knee arthroplasty (TKA).Methods:A retrospective analysis was conducted of the 20 patients (26 knees) with post-TKA arthrofibrosis who had been treated at Department of Orthopedics, The Fourth Medical Center of Chinese PLA General Hospital between January 2004 and January 2020. The patients were divided into 2 groups based on their treatment: an arthrolysis group of 8 cases (10 knees) [1 male (2 knees)and 7 females (8 knees); median age: 44.0 (21.0, 62.0) years] and a revision arthroplasty group of 13 cases (16 knees) [4 males (6 knees)and 9 females (10 knees); median age: 41.5 (30.0, 56.0) years]. The knee range of motion (ROM) and the American Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS) knee score as well as their improvements were compared between preoperation and the last follow-up, as well as between the 2 groups; the satisfaction of the patients at the last follow-up was compared between the 2 groups.Results:No significant differences in the baseline characteristics were observed between the 2 groups, indicating comparability ( P>0.05). The preoperative knee ROM [55.0° (48.8°, 61.3°)] and HSS knee score [54.0 (47.0, 61.8) points] in the arthrolysis group were significantly higher than those in the revision group [27.5° (6.3°, 50.0°), 33.0 (27.3, 47.8) points] ( P<0.05). In the arthrolysis and revision arthroplasty groups, the knee ROMs [90.0° (65.0°, 100.0°), 90.0° (63.5°, 98.8°)] and HSS knee scores [(69.8±19.9) points, (77.6±11.3) points] at the last follow-up were significantly improved compared with those before operation ( P<0.05). In the revision arthroplasty group, the improvement in knee ROM (48.9°±21.7°) was insignificantly larger than that in the arthrolysis group (34.5°±13.2°) ( P>0.05), but the improvement in HSS knee score [39.5 (25.3, 57.0) points] was significantly larger than that in the arthrolysis group [16.0 (10.5, 25.3) points] ( P<0.05). Respectively, 14 and 3 knees in the revision arthroplasty group and the arthrolysis group resulted in patient satisfaction, showing a significant difference between the 2 groups ( P<0.05). Conclusions:Both arthrolysis and revision arthroplasty can significantly improve knee ROM and HSS knee score in post-TKA arthrofibrosis. However, since revision arthroplasty demonstrates superior improvements in HSS knee score and patient satisfaction, it is preferable for patients with lower preoperative knee ROM.
