Clinical Review

Outcomes and Aseptic Survivorship of Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty

Author and Disclosure Information

 

References

In a retrospective cost-identification multicenter cohort study, Bozic and colleagues47 found that both-component and single-component revisions, compared with primary procedures, were associated with significantly increased operative time (~265 and 221 minutes vs 200 minutes), use of allograft bone (23% and 14% vs 1%), length of stay (5.4 and 5.7 days vs 5.0 days), and percentage of patients discharged to extended-care facilities (26% and 26% vs 25%) (P < .0001). Hospital costs for both- and single-component revisions were 138% and 114% higher than costs for primary procedures (P < .0001). More recently, Kallala and colleagues44 analyzed UK National Health Service data and compared the costs of revision for infection with revision for other causes (pain, instability, aseptic loosening, fracture). Mean length of stay associated with revision for infection (21.5 days) was more than double that associated with revision for aseptic loosening (9.5 days; P < .0001), and mean cost of revision for septic causes (£30,011) was more than 3 times that of revision for other causes (£9655; P < .0001). The authors concluded that the higher costs of revision knee surgery have a considerable economic impact, especially in infection cases.

With more extensive procedures, long-stem or more constrained prostheses are often needed to obtain adequate fixation and stability. The resulting increased, substantial economic burden is felt by patients and the health care system. Given that health care reimbursements are declining, hospitals that perform revision TKAs can sustain marked financial losses. Some centers are asking whether it is cost-effective to continue to perform these types of procedures. We must find new ways to provide revision procedures using less costly implants and tools so that centers will continue to make these procedures available to patients.

Conclusion

Given the exponential growth in primary TKAs, there will be a concordant increase in revision TKAs in the decades to come. This review provides a concise overview of revision TKA outcomes. Given the low level of evidence regarding revision TKAs, we need further higher quality studies of their prostheses and outcomes. Specifically, we need systematic reviews and meta-analyses to provide higher quality evidence regarding outcomes of using individual prosthetic designs.

Pages

Recommended Reading

Concomitant Ulnar Styloid Fracture and Distal Radius Fracture Portend Poorer Outcome
MDedge Surgery
Patient-Directed Valgus Stress Radiograph of the Knee: A New and Novel Technique
MDedge Surgery
A Bariatric Surgery Primer for Orthopedic Surgeons
MDedge Surgery
Incidence, Risk Factors, and Outcome Trends of Acute Kidney Injury in Elective Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty
MDedge Surgery
Web Page Content and Quality Assessed for Shoulder Replacement
MDedge Surgery
Risk-Stratified VTE Prophylaxis Following Total Joint Replacement Leads to Significant Hospital Cost Reductions and Prevents Deep Vein Thrombosis
MDedge Surgery
Phenotype HNPP (Hereditary Neuropathy With Liability to Pressure Palsies) Induced by Medical Procedures
MDedge Surgery
Reconstructive Shelf Arthroplasty as a Salvage Procedure for Complex Fifth Tarsometatarsal Joint Complex Injuries: A Case Review and Discussion
MDedge Surgery
Lateral Ulnar Collateral Ligament Reconstruction: An Analysis of Ulnar Tunnel Locations
MDedge Surgery
Implant Designs in Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty
MDedge Surgery