Cargando…

Revision arthroplasty after unicompartimental knee arthroplasty

BACKGROUND: Unicompartimental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is a promising and increasing application to treat unicompartimental knee osteoarthritis. However, revision arthroplasty numbers after UKA are unknown. Therefore, aim of this study was to determine the nationwide burden of revision after UKA by a...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Walter, Nike, Weber, Johannes, Kerschbaum, Maximilian, Lau, Edmund, Kurtz, Steven M., Alt, Volker, Rupp, Markus
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8588642/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34772430
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13018-021-02767-x
_version_ 1784598519639703552
author Walter, Nike
Weber, Johannes
Kerschbaum, Maximilian
Lau, Edmund
Kurtz, Steven M.
Alt, Volker
Rupp, Markus
author_facet Walter, Nike
Weber, Johannes
Kerschbaum, Maximilian
Lau, Edmund
Kurtz, Steven M.
Alt, Volker
Rupp, Markus
author_sort Walter, Nike
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Unicompartimental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is a promising and increasing application to treat unicompartimental knee osteoarthritis. However, revision arthroplasty numbers after UKA are unknown. Therefore, aim of this study was to determine the nationwide burden of revision after UKA by answering the following questions: (1) How did numbers of revision UKA procedures developed over the last decade as a function of age and gender? (2) How high is the percentage of revision UKA procedures due to infection? (3) Which therapy strategy was chosen for surgical treatment of aseptic revision UKA? METHODS: Revision arthroplasty rates as a function of age, gender, infection and type of prosthesis were quantified based on Operation and Procedure Classification System codes using revision knee arthroplasty data from 2008 to 2018, provided by the Federal Statistical Office of Germany (Destatis). RESULTS: Over the last decade, revision UKA increased by 46.3% up to 3105 procedures in 2018. A trend towards higher numbers in younger patients was observed. Septic interventions constituted 5.7% of all revisions, whereby total procedures increased by 67.1% from 2008 through 2018. The main treatment strategy was an exchange to a bicondylar surface replacement prosthesis, which was done in 63.70% of all cases, followed by exchange to a femoral and tibial shaft-anchored (16.2% of all revisions). CONCLUSION: The increasing number of revision arthroplasty after UKA in Germany, especially in younger patients and due to infection, underlines the need for future efforts to improve treatment strategies beyond UKA to delay primary arthroplasty and avoid periprosthetic joint infection.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8588642
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-85886422021-11-15 Revision arthroplasty after unicompartimental knee arthroplasty Walter, Nike Weber, Johannes Kerschbaum, Maximilian Lau, Edmund Kurtz, Steven M. Alt, Volker Rupp, Markus J Orthop Surg Res Research Article BACKGROUND: Unicompartimental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is a promising and increasing application to treat unicompartimental knee osteoarthritis. However, revision arthroplasty numbers after UKA are unknown. Therefore, aim of this study was to determine the nationwide burden of revision after UKA by answering the following questions: (1) How did numbers of revision UKA procedures developed over the last decade as a function of age and gender? (2) How high is the percentage of revision UKA procedures due to infection? (3) Which therapy strategy was chosen for surgical treatment of aseptic revision UKA? METHODS: Revision arthroplasty rates as a function of age, gender, infection and type of prosthesis were quantified based on Operation and Procedure Classification System codes using revision knee arthroplasty data from 2008 to 2018, provided by the Federal Statistical Office of Germany (Destatis). RESULTS: Over the last decade, revision UKA increased by 46.3% up to 3105 procedures in 2018. A trend towards higher numbers in younger patients was observed. Septic interventions constituted 5.7% of all revisions, whereby total procedures increased by 67.1% from 2008 through 2018. The main treatment strategy was an exchange to a bicondylar surface replacement prosthesis, which was done in 63.70% of all cases, followed by exchange to a femoral and tibial shaft-anchored (16.2% of all revisions). CONCLUSION: The increasing number of revision arthroplasty after UKA in Germany, especially in younger patients and due to infection, underlines the need for future efforts to improve treatment strategies beyond UKA to delay primary arthroplasty and avoid periprosthetic joint infection. BioMed Central 2021-11-12 /pmc/articles/PMC8588642/ /pubmed/34772430 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13018-021-02767-x Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research Article
Walter, Nike
Weber, Johannes
Kerschbaum, Maximilian
Lau, Edmund
Kurtz, Steven M.
Alt, Volker
Rupp, Markus
Revision arthroplasty after unicompartimental knee arthroplasty
title Revision arthroplasty after unicompartimental knee arthroplasty
title_full Revision arthroplasty after unicompartimental knee arthroplasty
title_fullStr Revision arthroplasty after unicompartimental knee arthroplasty
title_full_unstemmed Revision arthroplasty after unicompartimental knee arthroplasty
title_short Revision arthroplasty after unicompartimental knee arthroplasty
title_sort revision arthroplasty after unicompartimental knee arthroplasty
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8588642/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34772430
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13018-021-02767-x
work_keys_str_mv AT walternike revisionarthroplastyafterunicompartimentalkneearthroplasty
AT weberjohannes revisionarthroplastyafterunicompartimentalkneearthroplasty
AT kerschbaummaximilian revisionarthroplastyafterunicompartimentalkneearthroplasty
AT lauedmund revisionarthroplastyafterunicompartimentalkneearthroplasty
AT kurtzstevenm revisionarthroplastyafterunicompartimentalkneearthroplasty
AT altvolker revisionarthroplastyafterunicompartimentalkneearthroplasty
AT ruppmarkus revisionarthroplastyafterunicompartimentalkneearthroplasty