Cargando…

Survival, functional outcome and satisfaction of first revision total knee arthroplasty at a mean eleven-year follow-up

PURPOSE: Providing long-term outcome data after rTKA and compare one- versus two-stage and septic versus aseptic revisions. METHODS: This study represents a single-center retrospective study of first rTKAs performed for any reason with a final follow-up of a minimum of five years. Outcome parameters...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hecker, Andreas, Pütz, Hans-Jürg A., Wangler, Sebastian, Klenke, Frank M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Paris 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9928929/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35041071
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00590-022-03206-1
Descripción
Sumario:PURPOSE: Providing long-term outcome data after rTKA and compare one- versus two-stage and septic versus aseptic revisions. METHODS: This study represents a single-center retrospective study of first rTKAs performed for any reason with a final follow-up of a minimum of five years. Outcome parameters included stability assessment ROM, radiologic assessment, HSS score, KSS score, OKS score, EQ-5D-3L and VAS. 44 patients were included in the study. Subgroups analysis of one- versus two-stage revision and septic versus aseptic revision was performed. RESULTS: The leading causes of rTKA in this mean 11 year follow-up study were aseptic loosening (36%) and periprosthetic joint infection (27%). At the final follow-up, there was a 89% survivorship of the implants. Patients showed a ROM of 114 ± 13°, HSS score of 78 ± 12, KKS objective score of 77 ± 16, KSS expectation and satisfaction score of 32 ± 11, KSS functional activity score of 50 ± 20, OKS of 30 ± 9, VAS of 53 ± 25 and EQ-5D index of 0.649. Functional outcome scores were not significantly altered in the analyzed subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: In our 11 years follow-up, we obtained 89% implant survivorship. Measurements regarding functional outcome and pain showed results in the medium range of the respective scores, while patient satisfaction lay in the upper third. No significant differences in outcome scores between one- and two-stage revisions and septic versus aseptic revisions were observed. Level of Evidence Level III, retrospective cohort study.