First-time revision knee arthroplasty using a hinged prosthesis : temporal trends, indications, and risk factors associated with re-revision using data from the National Joint Registry for 3,855 patients.

AIMS The aim of this study was to identify variables associated with time to revision, demographic details associated with revision indication, and type of prosthesis employed, and to describe the survival of hinge knee arthroplasty (HKA) when used for first-time knee revision surgery and factors that were associated with re-revision. METHODS Patient demographic details, BMI, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, indication for revision, surgical approach, surgeon grade, implant type (fixed and rotating), time of revision from primary implantation, and re-revision if undertaken were obtained from the National Joint Registry data for England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the Isle of Man over an 18-year period (2003 to 2021). RESULTS There were 3,855 patient episodes analyzed with a median age of 73 years (interquartile range (IQR) 66 to 80), and the majority were female (n = 2,480, 64.3%). The median time to revision from primary knee arthroplasty was 1,219 days (IQR 579 to 2,422). Younger age (p < 0.001), decreasing ASA grade (p < 0.001), and indications for revision of sepsis (p < 0.001), unexplained pain (p < 0.001), non-polyethylene wear (p < 0.001), and malalignment (p < 0.001) were all associated with an earlier time to revision from primary implantation. The median follow-up was 4.56 years (range 0.00 to 17.52), during which there were 410 re-revisions. The overall unadjusted probability of re-revision for all revision HKAs at one, five, and ten years after surgery were 2.7% (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.2 to 3.3), 10.7% (95% CI 9.6 to 11.9), and 16.2% (95% CI 14.5 to 17.9), respectively. Male sex (p < 0.001), younger age (p < 0.001), revision for septic indications (p < 0.001) or implant fracture (p = 0.010), a fixed hinge (p < 0.001), or surgery performed by a non-consultant grade (p = 0.023) were independently associated with an increased risk of re-revision. CONCLUSION There were several factors associated with time to first revision. The re-revision rate was 16.2% at ten years; however, the risk factors associated with an increased risk of re-revision could be used to counsel patients regarding their outcome.Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(1):47-55.

[1]  A. Price,et al.  Implant survivorship, functional outcomes and complications with the use of rotating hinge knee implants: a systematic review , 2022, Knee Surgery & Related Research.

[2]  R. Hau,et al.  Distal femoral replacement for periprosthetic fractures after TKA: Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry review. , 2022, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[3]  N. Clement,et al.  Temporal trends of primary hinge knee arthroplasty and risk factors associated with revision: National Joint Registry data from 2003 to 2018 for 4921 patients. , 2022, The Knee.

[4]  M. Whitehouse,et al.  Association between surgeon grade and implant survival following hip and knee replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis , 2021, BMJ Open.

[5]  H. Matar,et al.  Septic Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty Is Associated With Significantly Higher Mortality Than Aseptic Revisions: Long-Term Single-Center Study (1254 Patients). , 2021, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[6]  George N Guild,et al.  Projections and Epidemiology of Revision Hip and Knee Arthroplasty in the United States to 2030. , 2020, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[7]  Peter R. Reuter,et al.  Prevalence of generalized joint hypermobility, musculoskeletal injuries, and chronic musculoskeletal pain among American university students , 2019, PeerJ.

[8]  A. Deshmukh,et al.  Rotating hinge prosthesis for complex revision total knee arthroplasty: A review of the literature. , 2017, Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma.

[9]  P. Ruggieri,et al.  Distal femur reconstruction with modular tumour prostheses: a single Institution analysis of implant survival comparing fixed versus rotating hinge knee prostheses , 2016, International Orthopaedics.

[10]  A. Leithner,et al.  The incidence of implant fractures after knee arthroplasty , 2016, Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy.

[11]  S. Kurtz,et al.  Comparative Epidemiology of Revision Arthroplasty: Failed THA Poses Greater Clinical and Economic Burdens Than Failed TKA , 2015, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[12]  D. Scott,et al.  The Association of ASA Class on Total Knee and Total Hip Arthroplasty Readmission Rates in an Academic Hospital. , 2015, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[13]  C. Cooper,et al.  Future projections of total hip and knee arthroplasty in the UK: results from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink. , 2015, Osteoarthritis and cartilage.

[14]  S. Hame,et al.  Knee osteoarthritis in women , 2013, Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine.

[15]  P. Sharkey,et al.  Why Are Total Knee Arthroplasties Failing Today? , 2002 .

[16]  Meyer Saklad,et al.  GRADING OF PATIENTS FOR SURGICAL PROCEDURES , 1941 .