The Fate and Relevance of the Patella in Two-Stage Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty for Periprosthetic Joint Infection

BackgroundIt remains unclear whether reimplantation of a patellar component during a two-stage revision for periprosthetic total knee arthroplasty infection (PJI) affects patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) or implant survivorship. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether patellar resurfacing during reimplantation confers a functional benefit or increases implant survivorship after two-stage treatment for PJI.MethodsTwo-stage revisions for knee PJI performed by three surgeons at a single tertiary care center were reviewed retrospectively. All original patellar components and cement were removed during resection and the patella was resurfaced whenever feasible during reimplantation. PROMs, implant survivorship, and radiographic measurements (patellar tilt and displacement) were compared between knees reimplanted with a patellar component versus those without a patellar component.ResultsA total of 103 patients met the inclusion criteria. Forty-three patients (41.7%) underwent reimplantation with, and 60 patients (58.3%) without a patellar component. At a mean follow-up of 33.5 months, there were no significant differences in patient demographics or PROMs between groups (P ≥ .156). No significant differences were found in the estimated Kaplan-Meier all-cause, aseptic, or septic survivorship between groups (P ≥ .342) at a maximum of 75 months follow-up. There was no significant difference in the change (pre-resection to post-reimplant) of patellar tilt (P = .504) or displacement (P = .097) between the groups.ConclusionPatellar resurfacing during knee reimplantation does not appear to meaningfully impact postoperative PROMs or survivorship. Given the risk of potential extensor mechanism complications with patellar resurfacing, surgeons may choose to leave the patella without an implant during total knee reimplantation and expect similar clinical outcomes.Level of EvidenceLevel III.     

The Impact of Patellar Resurfacing in Two-Stage Revision of the Infected Total Knee Arthroplasty

Evidence for optimal management of the patellofemoral joint in revision surgery for the infected TKA is limited. We reviewed 69 infected TKAs undergoing two-stage revision. Fifty four patellae were resurfaced, 11 had patelloplasty performed, two were augmented with trabecular metal, one had impaction grafting, and one knee underwent patellectomy. Average follow-up was 4.5 years. The patients that received patellar resurfacing at re-implantation experienced statistically significant improvements in KSS pain score, functional KSS, and patellar score (P < 0.03). One further patient treated with impaction grafting improved significantly in terms of pain and function. Patients treated with patelloplasty, trabecular metal augmentation, or patellectomy did not have significant improvements in clinical or functional outcome. Patient age, use of dynamic vs. static spacer, use of extensor mechanism release, and differences in Charlson index did not seem to statistically affect outcome. We recommend that every effort should be made to minimize patellar bone loss in first stage resection, as inability to resurface the patella at time of reimplantation may adversely affect patient outcome.     

Patellar Tracking in Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty: Does Retaining a Patella From a Different Implant System Matter?

BackgroundPatellar maltracking is a potential surgical complication following total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and can result in anterior knee pain, recurrent patellar dislocation, and damage to the medial patellar soft tissue stabilizers. Data remain unclear as to whether the patellar button should be revised during a revision TKA (rTKA) if changing the component implant system. Our study examines whether retaining the original patellar button during an rTKA using a different implant system affects patellar tracking.MethodsA retrospective cohort study of rTKA patients between August 2011 and June 2019 was performed at an urban, tertiary referral center. Patients were divided into 2 cohorts depending on whether their retained patella from their primary TKA was of the same (SIM) or different implant manufacturer (DIM) as the revision system used. Radiographic measurements were performed on preoperative and postoperative knee radiographs and differences were compared between the 2 groups. Baseline demographic data were also collected.ResultsOf the 293 consecutive, aseptic rTKA cases identified, 122 underwent revision in the SIM cohort and 171 in the DIM cohort. There were no demographic differences between the groups. No statistical significance was calculated for differences in preoperative and postoperative patellar tilt or Insall-Salvati ratio between the groups. The DIM group was found to have more lateral patellar translation (?0.01 ± 6.09 vs 2.68 ± 7.61 mm, P = .001). However, when calculating differences in the magnitude of the translation (thereby removing differences due to laterality), no difference was observed (0.06 ± 3.69 vs 0.52 ± 4.95 mm, P = .394).ConclusionNo clinically significant differences in patellar tracking were observed when the original patellar component was retained and a different revision implant system was used. Given the inherent risks of bone loss and fracture with patellar component revision, surgeons performing rTKA may retain the primary patella if it is well fixed and can still expect appropriate patellar tracking regardless of the revision implant system used.Level of EvidenceIII, Retrospective cohort study.     

High Mortality After Total Knee Arthroplasty Periprosthetic Joint Infection is Related to Preoperative Morbidity and the Disease Process but Not Treatment

BackgroundPeriprosthetic joint infection (PJI) mortality rate is approximately 20%. The etiology for high mortality remains unknown. The objective of this study was to determine whether mortality was associated with preoperative morbidity (frailty), sequalae of treatment, or the PJI disease process itself.MethodsA multicenter observational study was completed comparing 184 patients treated with septic revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) to a control group of 38 patients treated with aseptic revision TKA. Primary outcomes included time and the cause of death. Secondary outcomes included preoperative comorbidities and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCMI) measured preoperatively and at various postoperative timepoints.ResultsThe septic revision TKA cohort experienced earlier mortality compared to the aseptic cohort, with a higher mortality rate at 90 days, 1, 2, and 3 years after index revision surgery (P = .01). There was no significant difference for any single cause of death (P > .05 for each). The mean preoperative CCMI was higher (P = .005) in the septic revision TKA cohort. Both septic and aseptic cohorts experienced a significant increase in CCMI from the preoperative to 3 years postoperative (P < .0001 and P = .002) and time of death (P < .0001 both) timepoints. The septic revision TKA cohort had a higher CCMI 3 years postoperatively (P = .001) and at time of death (P = .046), but not one year postoperatively (P = .119).ConclusionCompared to mortality from aseptic revision surgery, septic revision TKA is associated with earlier mortality, but there is no single specific etiology. As quantified by changes in CCMI, PJI mortality was associated with both frailty and the PJI disease process, but not treatment.     

Mortality Following Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Matched Cohort Study of Septic versus Aseptic Revisions

We report the medium-term mortality after septic versus aseptic revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and factors that can contribute to mortality in revision TKA. Mortality rates of 88 patients undergoing septic revision (septic group) were compared with age- and year of surgery-matched 88 patients of aseptic revision (aseptic group). The overall mortality after revision TKA was 10.7% at a median of 4 years of follow-up (range, 2–7 years). However, the mortality after septic revision (18%, 16/88) was six times higher than that of aseptic revision (3%, 3/88) (P = 0.003). Infections with Staphylococcus aureus and/or methicillin resistance was not associated with higher mortality rates. Multivariate analysis indicated that increased age (P < 0.001), higher ASA class (P = 0.002), and septic revision (P < 0.001) were identified as independent predictors of increased mortality after revision TKA.     

Patient-Reported Outcomes and Satisfaction 1 to 3 Years After Revisions of Total Knee Arthroplasties for Unexplained Pain Versus Aseptic Loosening

BackgroundIt is unknown if patients are relieved of pain after knee arthroplasty revision for unexplained pain. The aim of this cross-sectional case-control study was to compare patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and satisfaction 1 to 3 years after revision of total knee arthroplasties (TKAs) for the indications of unexplained pain versus aseptic loosening.MethodsWe included 384 patients undergoing TKA revision for the indications of unexplained pain and aseptic loosening from January 1, 2018 to December 31, 2020 from the Danish Knee Arthroplasty Register. A total of 81 patients were revised for unexplained pain and 303 for aseptic loosening. Questionnaires including PROMs (Oxford Knee Score, EQ-5D-5L, and Forgotten Joint Score) and satisfaction with the surgery on a 0-100 scale (100 = not satisfied; 0 = very satisfied) were sent to digitally secured mailboxes. Time from revision to data collection was a median 3.1 years (range, 1.4-4.4 years).ResultsMedian Oxford Knee Score was 25 (interquartile range [IQR] 15) versus 31 (IQR 18) 1-3 years after revisions for unexplained pain versus aseptic loosening, P = .009. Median EQ-5D-5L was 0.6 (IQR 0.4) versus 0.8 (IQR 0.3) for unexplained pain versus aseptic loosening, P = .009. Median Forgotten Joint Score was 50 (IQR 7) versus 50 (IQR 16) for unexplained pain versus aseptic loosening, P = .905. Satisfaction was 75 (IQR 38) for unexplained pain and 50 (IQR 73) for aseptic loosening, P < .001.ConclusionPatients undergoing TKA revision for the indication of unexplained pain had worse results on PROMs than those revised for aseptic loosening. Likewise, patients revised for unexplained pain were less satisfied compared to patients revised for aseptic loosening. This information is valuable to both surgeons and patients when candidates for revision surgery are selected, to obtain the best possible outcomes.     

Joint line and patellar height restoration after revision total knee arthroplasty

Background:

Restoration of proper joint line (JL) position and patellar height in revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is essential in the recovery of knee function and kinematics. We determined whether the JL position and patellar height could be restored in patients undergoing septic and aseptic revision TKA.

Materials and Methods:

We retrospectively reviewed 70 patients (74 knees) who had revision TKA between September 2004 and December 2010. Forty seven knees had a two stage revision for infected TKA and 27 knees for aseptic failure. The JL position, patellar height and patellar tendon (PT) length were measured and compared between primary TKA and post revision. The clinical scores including a hospital for special surgery (HSS), Knee Society Score (KSS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) and range of motion (ROM) were compared.

Results:

The overall JL increased from 17.51 mm to 18.37 mm post revision, the Insall-Salvati (IS) ratio declined from 0.98 to 0.92, and the PT length declined from 42.92 mm to 39.45 mm. 9 of the 21 patellar baja knees improved to normal patellar height. After revision, the JL in the septic group (17.02 mm) was significantly lower than the aseptic group (20.74 mm). The changes of the JL position and IS ratio in the septic group were significantly larger than the aseptic groups (P < 0.05). JL position had a positive correlation to the IS ratio and PT length post revision. The knee function scores including HSS, KSS, WOMAC scores, and ROM all improved post revision compared to pre revision (P < 0.05), and the septic group had a lower knee function compared to the aseptic group. JL position and IS ratio post revision had no correlation to the HSS, KSS, WOMAC scores, and ROM.

Conclusions:

JL position can be sufficiently restored with appropriate distal femoral augment reconstruction after revision TKA, but the patellar height cannot be well improved, especially in the septic revision with obvious PT contracture. No correlation was found between the JL position and patellar height to the knee function post revision TKA.     

Quantitative Analysis of Patellar Tendon After Total Knee Arthroplasty Using Echo Intensity: A Nonrandomized Controlled Trial of Alpine Skiing

BackgroundDespite the knee extensor weakness, less attention has been paid to the evaluation of patellar tendon after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). We previously observed patellar tendon hypertrophy after TKA. The purpose of this study is to reanalyze these ultrasound data to detect whether brightness mode ultrasound imaging reflects pathological changes of the patellar tendon after TKA.MethodsTwenty-eight participants with post unilateral TKA were assigned to an intervention group or control group. The intervention group underwent a 12-week skiing program. Patellar tendon mechanical properties were obtained by combining isometric dynamometry, ultrasound imaging, and electromyography in operated knee and nonoperated knee. Luminosity ratio (LR) was measured using echo intensity in a relaxed and maximally loaded phase.ResultsBaseline comparisons revealed significant effects of the surgical side (P < .001) and loading phase (P = .017), but no interaction between leg and phase (P < .149). LR of the operated knee was significantly lower than LR of the nonoperated knee in relaxed (P < .001) and maximally loaded phases (P = .003). In addition, there was a significant correlation between LR of maximum phase and isometric knee extension torque (r² = 0.156, P = .038). However, LR was not related to patellar tendon stiffness, Young’s modulus, or strain. There was a significant time effect in knee extension torque, but no time effects on LR and tendon force.ConclusionPatellar tendon LR is decreased along with degenerative change after TKA. Ultrasound imaging provides a promising metric to acquire in vivo patellar tendon pathological assessment after TKA.     

Reconstruction of Disrupted Extensor Mechanism After Total Knee Arthroplasty

Background

Disruption of the extensor mechanism after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a debilitating complication that results in extension lag, limited range of motion, difficulty in walking, frequent falls, and chronic pain. This study presents the clinical and radiographic results of reconstruction after extensor mechanism disruption in TKA patients.

TKA is More Durable Than UKA for Morbidly Obese Patients: A Two-Year Minimum Follow-Up Study

BackgroundUnicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) indications have expanded during the past two decades to include some morbidly obese patients (body mass index (BMI) > 40 kg/m²). Few published studies have compared UKA and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in this unique patient subgroup with conflicting observations.MethodsWe retrospectively compared 89 mobile bearing UKA (71 patients) and 201 TKA (175 patients) performed at a single institution with a minimum 2-year follow-up (mean 3.4 years). Demographic characteristics were similar for both patient cohorts. A detailed medical record review was performed to assess the frequency of component revision, revision indications, minor secondary procedures (components retained), and infections.ResultsUKA was more frequently associated with clinical failure (29.2% vs 2.5%, P < .001) and component revision (15.7% vs 2.5%, P < .001), TKA was more frequently associated with extensor mechanism complications or knee manipulation (5.5% vs 0.0%, P = .02), and there was no difference in the infection rate (3.0% vs 2.2%, P = 1.0).ConclusionEarly complications were lower following UKA but were outweighed by higher component revision rates for arthritis progression and implant failure. The study findings suggest that TKA provides a more predictable mid-term outcome for morbidly obese patients considering knee arthroplasty surgery.     

Weight Gain After Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty Is Associated With Accelerated Time to Revision for Aseptic Loosening

BackgroundObesity is a major health problem worldwide and is associated with complications after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). It remains unknown whether a change in body mass index (BMI) after primary TKA affects the reasons for revision TKA or the time to revision TKA.MethodsA total of 160 primary TKAs referred to an academic tertiary center for revision TKA were retrospectively stratified according to change in BMI from the time of their primary TKA to revision TKA. The association between change in BMI and time to revision was also analyzed according to indication for revision of TKA using Pearson's chi-square test.ResultsThe mean change in BMI from primary to revision TKA was 0.82 ± 3.5 kg/m². Maintaining a stable weight after primary TKA was protective against late revision TKA for any reason (P = .004). Patients who failed to reduce their BMI were revised for aseptic loosening earlier, at less than 5 years (P = .020), whereas those who reduced their BMI were revised later, at over 10 years (P = .004).ConclusionMaintaining weight after primary TKA is protective against later revision TKA for any reason but failure to reduce weight after primary TKA is a risk factor for early revision TKA for aseptic loosening and osteolysis. Orthopedic surgeons should recommend against weight gain after primary TKA to reduce the risk of an earlier revision TKA in the event that a revision TKA is indicated.     

Single-Stage Revision of the Infected Total Knee Arthroplasty Is Associated With Improved Functional Outcomes: A Propensity Score–Matched Cohort Study

BackgroundSingle-stage revision is an alternative to the standard 2-stage revision, potentially minimizing morbidities and improving functional outcomes. This study aimed at comparing single-stage and 2-stage revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) for chronic periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) with regard to patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and complication rates.Methods:A total of 185 consecutive revision TKA patients for chronic PJI with complete preoperative and postoperative PROMs were investigated. A total of 44 patients with single-stage revision TKA were matched to 88 patients following 2-stage revision TKA using propensity score matching, yielding a total of 132 propensity score–matched patients for analysis. Patient demographics and clinical information including reinfection and readmission rates were evaluated.Results:There was no significant difference in preoperative PROMs between propensity score–matched single-stage and 2-stage revision TKA cohorts. Postoperatively, significantly higher PROMs for single-stage revision TKA were observed for Knee disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score physical function (62.2 vs 51.9, P < .01), physical function short form 10A (42.8 vs 38.1, P < .01), PROMIS SF Physical (44.8 vs 41.0, P = .01), and PROMIS SF Mental (50.5 vs 47.1, P = .02). There was no difference between propensity score–matched single-stage and 2-stage revision TKA cohorts for clinical outcomes including reinfection rates (25.0% vs 27.2%, P = .78) and 90-day readmission rates (22.7% vs 25.0%, P = .77).ConclusionThis study illustrated that single-stage revision TKA for chronic PJI may be associated with superior patient-reported outcomes compared to 2-stage revision for the infected TKA using a variety of PROMs. Improved PROMs were not accompanied by differences in complication rates between both cohorts, suggesting that single-stage revision TKA may provide an effective alternative to 2-stage revision in patients with chronic TKA PJI.     

Short-Term Surface Damage Mechanisms of Retrieved Highly Cross-Linked Polyethylene Patellar Components

BackgroundPrevious retrieval studies of patellar components for total knee arthroplasty focused on historical designs and polyethylene materials that are no longer clinically relevant. Therefore, this study aimed to compare revision reasons and surface damage mechanisms of conventional, gamma inert sterilized polyethylene and highly cross-linked polyethylene (HXLPE) patellar components in contemporary designs from a single manufacturer.MethodsA total of 114 gamma inert and 76 HXLPE patellar components were gathered in a multicenter orthopaedic implant retrieval program. Patient age and body mass index were similar between cohorts (P = .27 and P = .42, respectively); however, the gamma inert cohort was implanted longer (μ_difference = 3.1 years; P = .005). A matched subset was created based on the total knee arthroplasty design, patellar shape, and implantation time. Revision reasons were gathered from revision operating notes, and surface damage was examined via the Hood scoring method. Differences between HXLPE and gamma inert cohorts were evaluated using Mann-Whitney U-tests.ResultsThe most common revision reasons were infection, loosening, and instability, with the most common patellar complication resulting in revision being patellar loosening for both cohorts with similar incidences for both (chi-square; P = .60, P = .59). The most common surface damage modes were burnishing, scratching, and pitting in both cohorts. Total surface damage was significantly higher in the gamma inert components (P = .02), but not in the matched subset (P = .46).ConclusionOverall, the clinical performance of HXLPE was similar to that of conventional polyethylene for patellar components with short implantation times. While this study provides much needed information on the performance of HXLPE patellae in short-term retrievals, long-term studies are still needed.     

Is Conversion TKA a Primary or Revision? Clinical Course and Complication Risks Approximating Revision TKA Rather Than Primary TKA

BackgroundConversion total knee arthroplasty (convTKA) is associated with increased resource utilization and costs compared with primary TKA. The purpose of this study is to compare 1) surgical time, 2) hospitalization length (LOS), 3) complications, 4) infection, and 5) readmissions in patients undergoing convTKA to both primary TKA and revision TKA patients.MethodsThe American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Project database was queried from 2008 to 2018. Patients undergoing convTKA (n = 1,665, 0.5%) were defined by selecting Current Procedural Terminology codes 27,447 and 20,680. We compared the outcomes of interest to patients undergoing primary TKA (n = 348,624) and to patients undergoing aseptic revision TKA (n = 8213). Univariate and multivariate logistic regression was performed to identify the relative risk of postoperative complications.ResultsCompared with patients undergoing primary TKA, convTKA patients were younger (P < .001), had lower body mass index (P < .001), and were less likely to be American Society of Anesthesiologist class III/IV (P < .001). These patients had significantly longer operative times (122.6 vs 90.3 min, P < .001), increased LOS (P < .001), increased risks for any complication (OR 1.94), surgical site infection (OR 1.84), reoperation (OR 2.18), and readmissions (OR 1.60) after controlling for confounders. Compared with aseptic TKA revisions, operative times were shorter (122.6 vs 148.2 min, P < .001), but LOS (2.91 vs 2.95 days, P = .698) was similar. Furthermore, relative risk for any complication (P = .350), surgical site infection (P = .964), reoperation (P = .296), and readmissions (P = .844) did not differ.ConclusionConversion TKA procedures share more similarities with revision TKA rather than primary TKA procedures. Without a distinct procedural and diagnosis-related group, there are financial disincentives to care for these complex patients.Level of EvidenceII.     

Surgeons Experience More Physiologic Stress and Strain During Revision Than Primary Total Joint Arthroplasty

BackgroundRevision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) and total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) procedures are more complex than primary TKA and THA, but their physiologic burden to the surgeon has not been quantified. While rTKA and rTHA have longer operative times, it is unknown whether differences exist in stress and strain compared to primary TKA and primary THA. The study was conducted to elicit whether differences exist in surgeon physiological response while performing rTKA and rTKA compared to primary TKA and primary THA.MethodsWe evaluated a prospective cohort study of 70 consecutive cases (23 primary TKAs, 12 primary THAs, 16 rTKAs, and 19 rTHAs). Two high-volume fellowship-trained arthroplasty surgeons wore a smart vest that recorded cardiorespiratory data while performing primary THA, primary TKA, rTHA, and rTKA. Heart rate (beats/minute), stress index (correlates with sympathetic activation), respiratory rate (respirations/minute), minute ventilation (L/min), and energy expenditure (Calories) were collected for every case, along with patient body mass index (kilograms/meter²) and working operative time (minutes). T-tests were used to assess for differences between the two groups.ResultsCompared to primary TKA, performing rTKAs had a significantly higher surgeon stress index (17 versus 15; P = .035), heart rate (104 versus 99; P = .007), energy expenditure per case (409 versus 297; P = .002), and a significantly lower heart rate variability (11 versus 12; P = .006). Compared to primary THA, performing rTHA had a significantly higher energy expenditure per case (431 versus 307; P = .007) and trended towards having a higher surgeon stress index (16 versus 14; P = .272) and a lower heart rate variability (11 versus 12; P = .185), although it did not reach statistical significance.ConclusionSurgeons experience higher physiological stress and strain when performing rTKA and rTHA compared to primary TKA and primary THA. This study provides objective data on what many surgeons feel and should promote further research on the specific stress and strain felt by surgeons who perform revision arthroplasty procedures.     

Outcome of Revision Surgery for the Idiopathic Stiff Total Knee Arthroplasty

BackgroundIdiopathic stiff total knee arthroplasty (TKA) represents one of the most challenging subsets of the stiff TKA, as the etiology is unknown and there is no consensus on the most appropriate surgical treatment modality. Therefore, the aim of this study is to report on postoperative outcomes of revision surgery for idiopathic stiff TKA.MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed 189 consecutive patients (202 knees) who underwent revision TKA for stiffness: (1) 101 knees in the idiopathic stiffness cohort and (2) 88 in the non-idiopathic stiffness cohort. In the idiopathic stiffness cohort, 42 knees underwent isolated tibial insert exchange and 59 knees underwent component revision. Perioperative knee range of movement and complications were analyzed.ResultsThe overall revision surgery outcomes of the idiopathic stiffness cohort were worse than those of the non-idiopathic stiffness cohort with regard to maximum flexion (91.7° vs 100.1°, P = .02) and flexion range of motion (ROM) (87.6° vs 97.1°, P = .01). In the idiopathic stiffness cohort, isolated tibial insert exchange demonstrated greater maximum flexion (96.8° vs 88.4°, P = .06) and flexion ROM (93.2° vs 83.9°, P = .07). In terms of re-revision rates, the isolated tibial insert exchange idiopathic stiffness cohort demonstrated lower re-revision rates compared to the component revision idiopathic stiffness cohort (16.7% vs 31.0%, P = .01).ConclusionThis study demonstrates that the overall revision surgery outcome of idiopathic stiff TKA is worse than non-idiopathic TKA stiffness. In idiopathic stiffness cohorts, isolated tibial insert exchange was associated with lower re-revision rates than component revision, with similar efficacy in improving ROM, suggesting that isolated tibial insert exchange may be a preferred surgical treatment option in TKA patients with idiopathic stiffness.     

Revision Joint Arthroplasty and Renal Transplant: A Matched Control Cohort Study

BackgroundThere is little literature concerning clinical outcomes following revision joint arthroplasty in solid organ transplant recipients. The aims of this study are to (1) analyze postoperative outcomes and mortality following revision hip and knee arthroplasty in renal transplant recipients (RTRs) compared to non-RTRs and (2) characterize common indications and types of revision procedures among RTRs.MethodsA retrospective Medicare database review identified 1020 RTRs who underwent revision joint arthroplasty (359 revision total knee arthroplasty [TKA] and 661 revision total hip arthroplasty [THA]) from 2005 to 2014. RTRs were compared to their respective matched control groups of nontransplant revision arthroplasty patients for hospital length of stay, readmission, major medical complications, infections, septicemia, and mortality following revision.ResultsRenal transplantation was significantly associated with increased length of stay (6.12 ± 7.86 vs 4.33 ± 4.29, P < .001), septicemia (odds ratio [OR], 2.52; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.83-3.46; P < .001), and 1-year mortality (OR, 2.71; 95% CI, 1.51-4.53; P < .001) following revision TKA. Among revision THA patients, RTR status was associated with increased hospital readmission (OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.03-1.47; P = .023), septicemia (OR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.41-2.34; P < .001), and 1-year mortality (OR, 2.65; 95% CI, 1.88-3.66; P < .001). The most frequent primary diagnoses associated with revision TKA and THA among RTRs were mechanical complications of prosthetic implant.ConclusionPrior renal transplantation among revision joint arthroplasty patients is associated with increased morbidity and mortality when compared to nontransplant recipients.     

Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty in Young Patients: Higher Early Reoperation and Rerevision

BackgroundRevision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) rates are increasing in younger patients. Few studies have assessed outcomes of initial aseptic rTKA performed for younger patients compared with traditional-aged patients.MethodsA detailed medical record review was performed to identify patient demographics, medical comorbidities, surgical rTKA indications, timing from index TKA to rTKA, subsequent reoperation rates, component rerevision rates, and salvage procedures for 147 young patients (158 knees) aged 55 years and younger and for a traditional older cohort of 276 patients (300 knees) between 60 and 75 years. Univariate analysis was performed to assess differences in these primary variables, and a log-rank test was used to estimate 5-year implant survival based on either reoperation or component revision and salvage procedures.ResultsYounger TKA patients were more likely to undergo initial aseptic rTKA within 2 years of their primary TKA (52.5% vs 29.0%, P < .001) and were more likely to undergo early reoperation (17.7% vs 9.7%, P = .02) or component rerevision (11.4% vs 6.0%, P < .05) after rTKA. Infection and extensor mechanism complications were more commonly noted in younger patients. Estimated 5-year survival was also lower for both reoperation (59.4% vs 65.7%, P = .02) and component rerevision or salvage (65.8% vs 80.1%, P = .02).ConclusionEarly reoperation and component re-rTKA were performed nearly twice as often in younger rTKA than traditional-aged TKA patients. Care should be given to reduce perioperative infection and extensor mechanism failures after rTKA in younger patients.     

Does Unicompartmental Knee Replacement Offer Improved Clinical Advantages Over Total Knee Replacement in the Treatment of Isolated Lateral Osteoarthritis? A Matched Cohort Analysis From an Independent Center

BackgroundThe purpose of this study is to compare the functional and radiographic results, perioperative complications, satisfaction rate, and mid-term survivorship after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) for the treatment of lateral compartmental knee osteoarthritis (LCKO).MethodsBetween March 2007 and September 2017, we identified 35 patients with primary TKAs and 121 patients with lateral UKAs (LUKAs) for LCKO with a minimum follow-up of 2 years (mean 5.3 years, range 2-12.4). The matched variables were age, gender, operation side, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologist grade, initial diagnosis, osteoarthritis grade in lateral compartment, and follow-up time. All patients were assessed using the Oxford Knee Score, Hospital for Special Surgery score, range of motion, length of hospital stay, satisfaction, and complications. Survivorship of UKA and TKA implants was also compared.ResultsAt last follow-up, LUKA had a significantly better postoperative Oxford Knee Score, Hospital for Special Surgery score, range of motion, shorter length of hospital time, and higher satisfaction rate than matched TKA group. There were significant differences regarding patellar tendon injury (P = .043), superficial wound infection (P = .028), patellar snapping or impingement (P = .047), and stiffness (P < .001). Five-year survivorships free from revision were similar in both groups (99.2% vs 97.1%, P = .347).ConclusionLUKA for LCKO demonstrated more favorable 5-year results in comparison with TKA. Furthermore, LUKA achieved comparable mid-term survivorship and was less likely to suffer from wound infection and knee stiffness, although not overall surgical complications.     

Diagnostic and Invasive Colonoscopy Are Not Risk Factors for Revision Surgery Due to Periprosthetic Joint Infection

BackgroundColonoscopy is routinely performed for colorectal cancer screening in patients who have a preexisting unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA), total knee arthroplasty (TKA), or total hip arthroplasty (THA) prostheses. However, colonoscopy is theorized to provoke transient bacteremia, providing a potential nidus for periprosthetic joint infection. This study aimed to investigate the risk of aseptic and septic revision surgery in patients who underwent diagnostic colonoscopy or invasive colonoscopy within one year following UKA, TKA, or THA.MethodsA retrospective cohort analysis was performed using a national database. Patients were identified using Current Procedural Terminology. In total, 52,891 patients underwent UKA, 1,049,218 underwent TKA, and 526,296 underwent THA. Data were analyzed with univariate analysis preceding multivariable logistic regressions to investigate outcomes of interest at 2 and 3 years from the index procedure.ResultsDiagnostic colonoscopy resulted in no increase in odds of all-cause or septic revision surgery for any prostheses. At both time points, invasive colonoscopy resulted in lower odds of all-cause revision (P < .05) for patients with UKA, decreased odds of septic revision (P < .001) for patients with TKA, and decreased odds of both all-cause and septic revision (P < .05) for patients with THA.ConclusionOur results show that diagnostic colonoscopy was not a significant risk factor for revision following UKA, TKA, or THA. Paradoxically, invasive colonoscopy was protective against revision, even with very minimal use of antibiotic prophylaxis observed. This study addresses the theory that colonoscopy procedures may threaten an existing joint prosthesis via transient bacteremia and shows no increase in revision outcomes following colonoscopy.Level of EvidenceLevel III.