Impact of Obesity on the Outcomes of Aseptic Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty.

Journal and index pages often block iframe embedding. This reader keeps the evidence details in Orthonotes and leaves the source page one click away.

Abstract

[Indexed for MEDLINE] 17. Bone Joint J. 2022 Jun;104-B(6):672-679. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.104B6.BJJ-2021-1744.R1. The lifetime revision risk of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Tay ML(1)(2), Young SW(1)(2), Frampton CM(3), Hooper GJ(3). Author information: (1)Department of Surgery, University of Auckland, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, Auckland, New Zealand. (2)Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, North Shore Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand. (3)Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Musculoskeletal Medicine, University of Otago Christchurch, Christchurch, New Zealand. AIMS: Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) has a higher risk of revision than total knee arthroplasty (TKA), particularly for younger patients. The outcome of knee arthroplasty is typically defined as implant survival or revision incidence after a defined number of years. This can be difficult for patients to conceptualize. We aimed to calculate the 'lifetime risk' of revision for UKA as a more meaningful estimate of risk projection over a patient's remaining lifetime, and to compare this to TKA. METHODS: Incidence of revision and mortality for all primary UKAs performed from 1999 to 2019 (n = 13,481) was obtained from the New Zealand Joint Registry (NZJR). Lifetime risk of revision was calculated for patients and stratified by age, sex, and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade. RESULTS: The lifetime risk of revision was highest in the youngest age group (46 to 50 years; 40.4%) and decreased sequentially to the oldest (86 to 90 years; 3.7%). Across all age groups, lifetime risk of revision was higher for females (ranging from 4.3% to 43.4% vs males 2.9% to 37.4%) and patients with a higher ASA grade (ASA 3 to 4, ranging from 8.8% to 41.2% vs ASA 1 1.8% to 29.8%). The lifetime risk of revision for UKA was double that of TKA across all age groups (ranging from 3.7% to 40.4% for UKA, and 1.6% to 22.4% for TKA). The higher risk of revision in younger patients was associated with aseptic loosening in both sexes and pain in females. Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) accounted for 4% of all UKA revisions, in contrast with 27% for TKA; the risk of PJI was higher for males than females for both procedures. CONCLUSION: Lifetime risk of revision may be a more meaningful measure of arthroplasty outcomes than implant survival at defined time periods. This study highlights the higher lifetime risk of UKA revision for younger patients, females, and those with a higher ASA grade, which can aid with patient counselling prior to UKA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(6):672-679. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.104B6.BJJ-2021-1744.R1