Prosthesis survival after revision knee arthroplasty for “pain without loosening” versus “aseptic loosening”: a Danish nationwide study

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningfagfællebedømt

Dokumenter

  • Fulltext

    Forlagets udgivne version, 735 KB, PDF-dokument

  • Kristine Bollerup Arndt
  • Henrik M. Schrøder
  • Troelsen, Anders
  • Martin Lindberg-Larsen

Background and purpose — Patients having a knee arthroplasty revision for the indication “pain without loos-ening” may have a higher risk of re-revisions than patients revised for other indications. The primary aim of this study was to compare the survival of knee arthroplasties revised for “pain without loosening” compared with “aseptic loos-ening.” The second was to investigate the prosthesis survival rates in 3 surgical subgroups (total knee arthroplasty (TKA)–TKA; partial revision (revision of tibial or femoral component); unicompartmental knee arthroplasty–TKA) and to compare the prosthesis survival rates for 1997–2009 and 2010–2018. Patients and methods — 4,299 revisions were identified in the period 1997–2018 from the Danish Knee Arthro-plasty Register. Of these, 1,111 (26%) were performed due to “pain without loosening” without any other indications, 674 (16%) due to “pain without loosening” combined with other indications, and 2,514 (59%) due to “aseptic loosen-ing”. Survival analysis was performed by a Cox multivariate analysis and Kaplan–Meier curves were presented. Results — The cumulated proportions of re-revision after 2, 5, and 20 years were 12% (95% CI 10–14), 18% (CI 16–20), and 23% (CI 20–25) for “pain without loosen-ing” versus 11% (CI 9.3–12), 16% (CI 14–17), and 19% (CI 18–21) for “aseptic loosening.” There were no statistically significant differences between the 2 indications in repeated analyses for each of the surgical subgroups. The hazard ratio for re-revision comparing “pain without loosening” with “aseptic loosening” was 1.03 (CI 0.87–1.2). The 8-year risk of re-revision for “pain without loosening” was 22% (CI 19–26) versus 22% (CI 20–25) for “aseptic loosening” in the period from 1997–2009, and 18% (CI 15–22) versus 14% (CI 13–16) in the period from 2010–2018. Interpretation — The risk of re-revision was similar for patients having a knee arthroplasty revision for the indication “pain without loosening” compared with “aseptic loos-ening.” However, we observed a slight improvement of prosthesis survival rates after revisions for both indications from 1997–2009 to 2010–2018. We cannot recommend for or against revision in cases with “pain without loosening” based on these data alone.

OriginalsprogEngelsk
TidsskriftActa Orthopaedica
Vol/bind93
Sider (fra-til)103-110
Antal sider8
ISSN1745-3674
DOI
StatusUdgivet - 2022

Bibliografisk note

Funding Information:
The study was approved by the Danish Data Protection Agency (Journal no. 19/14416). Ethical approval was not needed as the study was non-interventional. The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. The study was funded by the Danish Rheumatism Association. The authors have no competing interests to declare.

Funding Information:
The authors acknowledge Odense Patient data Explorative Network for their help and advice on this study. Furthermore, they thank Odense University Hospital and the University of Southern Denmark for their financial support.

Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 The Author(s).

ID: 312770535