Cargando…

Failure of aseptic revision total knee arthroplasties: 145 revision failures from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register, 1994–2011

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: In Norway, the proportion of revision knee arthroplasties increased from 6.9% in 1994 to 8.5% in 2011. However, there is limited information on the epidemiology and causes of subsequent failure of revision knee arthroplasty. We therefore studied survival rate and determined t...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Leta, Tesfaye H, Lygre, Stein Håkon L, Skredderstuen, Arne, Hallan, Geir, Furnes, Ove
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Informa Healthcare 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4366664/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25267502
http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/17453674.2014.964097
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: In Norway, the proportion of revision knee arthroplasties increased from 6.9% in 1994 to 8.5% in 2011. However, there is limited information on the epidemiology and causes of subsequent failure of revision knee arthroplasty. We therefore studied survival rate and determined the modes of failure of aseptic revision total knee arthroplasties. METHOD: This study was based on 1,016 aseptic revision total knee arthroplasties reported to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register between 1994 and 2011. Revisions done for infections were not included. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses were used to assess the survival rate and the relative risk of re-revision with all causes of re-revision as endpoint. RESULTS: 145 knees failed after revision total knee arthroplasty. Deep infection was the most frequent cause of re-revision (28%), followed by instability (26%), loose tibial component (17%), and pain (10%). The cumulative survival rate for revision total knee arthroplasties was 85% at 5 years, 78% at 10 years, and 71% at 15 years. Revision total knee arthroplasties with exchange of the femoral or tibial component exclusively had a higher risk of re-revision (RR = 1.7) than those with exchange of the whole prosthesis. The risk of re-revision was higher for men (RR = 2.0) and for patients aged less than 60 years (RR = 1.6). INTERPRETATION: In terms of implant survival, revision of the whole implant was better than revision of 1 component only. Young age and male sex were risk factors for re-revision. Deep infection was the most frequent cause of failure of revision of aseptic total knee arthroplasties.