Variation and Trends in Reasons for Knee Replacement Revision: a Multi-registry Study of Revision Burden

Overview

Journal Acta Orthop

Specialty Orthopedics

Date 2020 Dec 2

PMID 33263453

Citations 12

Authors

Peter L Lewis

Otto Robertsson

Stephan E Graves

Elizabeth W Paxton

Heather A Prentice

Annette W-Dahl

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background and purpose - Studies describing time-related change in reasons for knee replacement revision have been limited to single regions or institutions, commonly analyze only 1st revisions, and may not reflect true caseloads or findings from other areas. We used revision procedure data from 3 arthroplasty registries to determine trends and differences in knee replacement revision diagnoses.Patients and methods - We obtained aggregated data for 78,151 revision knee replacement procedures recorded by the Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Register (SKAR), the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR), and the Kaiser Permanente Joint Replacement Registry (KPJRR) for the period 2003-2017. Equivalent diagnosis groups were created. We calculated the annual proportions of the most common reasons for revision.Results - Infection, loosening, and instability were among the 5 most common reasons for revision but magnitude and ranking varied between registries. Over time there were increases in proportions of revisions for infection and decreases in revisions for wear. There were inconsistent proportions and trends for the other reasons for revision. The incidence of revision for infection showed a uniform increase.Interpretation - Despite some differences in terminology, comparison of registry-recorded revision diagnoses is possible, but defining a single reason for revision is not always clear-cut. There were common increases in revision for infection and decreases in revision for wear, but variable changes in other categories. This may reflect regional practice differences and therefore generalizability of studies regarding reasons for revision is unwise.

Citing Articles

Comparison of medium- and long-term total knee arthroplasty follow-up with or without tourniquet.

Zhong Q, Yang H, Qi R, Zhang T, Zhan J, Yao Y BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2025; 26(1):205.

PMID: 40016694 PMC: 11866867. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-025-08462-w.

Is Wear Still a Concern in Total Knee Arthroplasty With Contemporary Conventional and Highly Crosslinked Polyethylene Tibial Inserts in the mid- to Long-Term?.

Asher D, Wright J, Hall D, Lundberg H, Van Citters D, Jacobs J Arthroplast Today. 2024; 30:101550.

PMID: 39534215 PMC: 11555350. DOI: 10.1016/j.artd.2024.101550.

Genetically predicted effects of 10 sleep phenotypes on revision of knee arthroplasty: a mendelian randomization study.

Bi Z, Cai Y, Chen J, Shi X, Liao S, Jin L J Orthop Surg Res. 2024; 19(1):563.

PMID: 39267063 PMC: 11391806. DOI: 10.1186/s13018-024-05031-0.

Prevalence, risk factors, microbiological results and clinical outcome in unexpected positive intraoperative cultures in unclear and presumed aseptic hip and knee revision arthroplasties - A ten-year retrospective analysis with a minimum follow up....

Simon S, Martalanz L, Frank B, Hartmann S, Mitterer J, Sebastian S J Orthop Translat. 2024; 48:156-162.

PMID: 39247790 PMC: 11380463. DOI: 10.1016/j.jot.2024.08.002.

Clinical outcomes and radiolucent line analysis in cementless mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty: a prospective multicentre study in Japan.

Minoda Y, Nakagawa S, Ueyama H, Warashina H, Kato M, Matsumoto T Sci Rep. 2024; 14(1):20902.

PMID: 39245768 PMC: 11381509. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-71806-4.

References

Lum Z, Shieh A, Dorr L . Why total knees fail-A modern perspective review. World J Orthop. 2018; 9(4):60-64. PMC: 5908984. DOI: 10.5312/wjo.v9.i4.60. View

de Steiger R, Muratoglu O, Lorimer M, Cuthbert A, Graves S . Lower prosthesis-specific 10-year revision rate with crosslinked than with non-crosslinked polyethylene in primary total knee arthroplasty. Acta Orthop. 2015; 86(6):721-7. PMC: 4750773. DOI: 10.3109/17453674.2015.1065046. View

Karas V, Calkins T, Bryan A, Culvern C, Nam D, Berger R . Total Knee Arthroplasty in Patients Less Than 50 Years of Age: Results at a Mean of 13 Years. J Arthroplasty. 2019; 34(10):2392-2397. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2019.05.018. View

Le D, Goodman S, Maloney W, Huddleston J . Current modes of failure in TKA: infection, instability, and stiffness predominate. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014; 472(7):2197-200. PMC: 4048402. DOI: 10.1007/s11999-014-3540-y. View

Holt G, Murnaghan C, Reilly J, Meek R . The biology of aseptic osteolysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007; 460:240-52. DOI: 10.1097/BLO.0b013e31804b4147. View

Siqueira M, Klika A, Higuera C, Barsoum W . Modes of failure of total knee arthroplasty: registries and realities. J Knee Surg. 2014; 28(2):127-38. DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1396014. View

Zhang Q, Chen Z, Zhang J, Hu J, Peng Y, Fan X . Insert conformity variation affects kinematics and wear performance of total knee replacements. Clin Biomech (Bristol). 2019; 65:19-25. DOI: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2019.03.016. View

Paxton E, Furnes O, Namba R, Inacio M, Fenstad A, Havelin L . Comparison of the Norwegian knee arthroplasty register and a United States arthroplasty registry. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012; 93 Suppl 3:20-30. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.K.01045. View

Gilbert S, Rana A, Lipman J, Wright T, Westrich G . Design changes improve contact patterns and articular surface damage in total knee arthroplasty. Knee. 2014; 21(6):1129-34. DOI: 10.1016/j.knee.2014.07.022. View

10.

Aprato A, Risitano S, Sabatini L, Giachino M, Agati G, Masse A . Cementless total knee arthroplasty. Ann Transl Med. 2016; 4(7):129. PMC: 4842397. DOI: 10.21037/atm.2016.01.34. View

11.

Sharkey P, Lichstein P, Shen C, Tokarski A, Parvizi J . Why are total knee arthroplasties failing today--has anything changed after 10 years?. J Arthroplasty. 2014; 29(9):1774-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2013.07.024. View

12.

Niinimaki T . The reasons for knee arthroplasty revisions are incomparable in the different arthroplasty registries. Knee. 2015; 22(2):142-4. DOI: 10.1016/j.knee.2014.12.007. View

13.

Hamilton D, Howie C, Burnett R, Simpson A, Patton J . Dealing with the predicted increase in demand for revision total knee arthroplasty: challenges, risks and opportunities. Bone Joint J. 2015; 97-B(6):723-8. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.97B6.35185. View

14.

Havelin L, Robertsson O, Fenstad A, Overgaard S, Garellick G, Furnes O . A Scandinavian experience of register collaboration: the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association (NARA). J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012; 93 Suppl 3:13-9. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.K.00951. View

15.

Ramappa M . Midflexion instability in primary total knee replacement: a review. SICOT J. 2016; 1:24. PMC: 4849283. DOI: 10.1051/sicotj/2015020. View

16.

Jacofsky D, Allen M . Robotics in Arthroplasty: A Comprehensive Review. J Arthroplasty. 2016; 31(10):2353-63. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2016.05.026. View

17.

Hunter D, Bierma-Zeinstra S . Osteoarthritis. Lancet. 2019; 393(10182):1745-1759. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)30417-9. View

18.

Kumar A, Tsai W, Tan T, Kung P, Chiu L, Ku M . Temporal trends in primary and revision total knee and hip replacement in Taiwan. J Chin Med Assoc. 2015; 78(9):538-44. PMC: 7105048. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcma.2015.06.005. View

19.

Koh C, Zeng I, Ravi S, Zhu M, Vince K, Young S . Periprosthetic Joint Infection Is the Main Cause of Failure for Modern Knee Arthroplasty: An Analysis of 11,134 Knees. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017; 475(9):2194-2201. PMC: 5539036. DOI: 10.1007/s11999-017-5396-4. View

20.

Johnson R, Abdel M, Frank R, Chamberlain A, Habermann E, Mantilla C . Frailty Index Is Associated With Periprosthetic Fracture and Mortality After Total Knee Arthroplasty. Orthopedics. 2019; 42(6):335-343. DOI: 10.3928/01477447-20190812-05. View