Registry outcomes of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty revisions

被引:53
作者
Dudley, Thomas E. [2 ]
Gioe, Terence J. [1 ,2 ]
Sinner, Penny [3 ]
Mehle, Susan [3 ]
机构
[1] Minneapolis Vet Affairs Med Ctr, Minneapolis, MN 55417 USA
[2] Univ Minnesota, Dept Orthopaed Surg, Minneapolis, MN 55455 USA
[3] HealthEast Res Dept, St Paul, MN USA
关键词
D O I
10.1007/s11999-008-0279-3
中图分类号
R826.8 [整形外科学]; R782.2 [口腔颌面部整形外科学]; R726.2 [小儿整形外科学]; R62 [整形外科学(修复外科学)];
学科分类号
摘要
Perceptions of the difficulty and outcome of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty revision (rev-UKA) vary. We analyzed differences in the complexity, cost, and survival of rev-UKAs compared with revision TKAs (rev-TKA). One hundred eighty knee arthroplasty revisions (68 rev-UKAs/112 rev-TKAs), defined as a minimum of tibial or femoral component revision, were identified from a community joint registry of 7587 knee implants performed between 1991 and 2005. Four of 68 rev-UKAs (5.9%) were revised a second time, whereas seven of 112 rev-TKAs (6.3%) were rerevised. Rev-TKA was predictably more complex than rev-UKA based on the proxies of operative time, use of modular augmentation and stems, and polyethylene liner thickness. Thirty-nine of 68 rev-UKAs (57%) had no form of augmentation and were revised as primary TKAs. There were more rev-TKAs than rev-UKAs with an implant cost greater than $5200 (42% versus 12%) and hospital charges greater than $33,000 (48% versus 25%). We found no difference in survival between the groups. Although rev-UKAs had less surgical complexity and bone loss at the time of revision compared with rev-TKAs, we were unable to show improved survival of rev-UKAs compared with rev-TKAs. Rev-UKAs were associated with lower implant costs and hospital charges compared with rev-TKAs.
引用
收藏
页码:1666 / 1670
页数:5
相关论文
共 27 条
  • [1] Modern unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with cement - A three to ten-year follow-up study
    Argenson, JNA
    Chevrol-Benkeddache, Y
    Aubaniac, JM
    [J]. JOURNAL OF BONE AND JOINT SURGERY-AMERICAN VOLUME, 2002, 84A (12) : 2235 - 2239
  • [2] BAE DK, 1983, CLIN ORTHOP RELAT R, P233
  • [3] BARRETT WP, 1987, J BONE JOINT SURG AM, V69A, P1328
  • [4] Revision surgery after failed unicompartmental knee arthroplasty -: A study of 35 cases
    Böhm, I
    Landsiedl, F
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ARTHROPLASTY, 2000, 15 (08) : 982 - 989
  • [5] PATIENT OUTCOMES FOLLOWING UNICOMPARTMENTAL OR BICOMPARTMENTAL KNEE ARTHROPLASTY - A METAANALYSIS
    CALLAHAN, CM
    DRAKE, BG
    HECK, DA
    DITTUS, RS
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ARTHROPLASTY, 1995, 10 (02) : 141 - 150
  • [6] Revision of unicompartmental arthroplasty of the knee - Clinical and technical considerations
    Chakrabarty, G
    Newman, JH
    Ackroyd, CE
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ARTHROPLASTY, 1998, 13 (02) : 191 - 196
  • [7] CHESNUT WJ, 1991, CLIN ORTHOP RELAT R, P146
  • [8] Deshmukh RV, 2001, CLIN ORTHOP RELAT R, P272
  • [9] Implementation and application of a community total joint registry: A twelve-year history
    Gioe, Terence J.
    Killeen, Kathleen K.
    Mehle, Susan
    Grimm, Katherine
    [J]. JOURNAL OF BONE AND JOINT SURGERY-AMERICAN VOLUME, 2006, 88A (06) : 1399 - 1404
  • [10] Analysis of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in a community-based implant registry
    Gioe, TJ
    Killeen, KK
    Hoeffel, DP
    Bert, JM
    Comfort, TK
    Scheltema, K
    Mehle, S
    Grimm, K
    [J]. CLINICAL ORTHOPAEDICS AND RELATED RESEARCH, 2003, (416) : 111 - 119