Literature DB >> 25614775

LETTER TO THE EDITOR Revision of Unicondylar to Total Knee Arthoplasty: A Systematic Review.

Christof Pabinger1.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Year:  2014        PMID: 25614775      PMCID: PMC4298038          DOI: 10.2174/1874325001408010474

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Open Orthop J        ISSN: 1874-3250


× No keyword cloud information.

DEAR PROF. HERNIGOU,

To assess revision rates after knee arthroplasty we compared cumulative results from world wide clinical studies and arthroplasty registers from the 1960 up to now in one of the largest reviews ever [1]. We found, the overall revision rate at ten years was 6% for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and17%for unicondylar protheses (UKA). Literature from non-register studies are biased regarding UKA [2]. After the first revision, the five year revision rate was 3% for TKR and 9% for UKR [3]. Therefore, it can be calculated that revision rate after 15 years for TKA is 9% (6% + 3%) and rate for UKR is 26% (17%+9%). We therefore compared two treatments options with a different outcome. Since the average patients receiving UKRare younger than the average patients receiving TKR, it is therefore questionable to treat the younger patients with a treatment option with a 3-fold higher revision rate (26% instead of 9%). In my opion, UKR shall be reserved for older patients and not for younger patients.
  2 in total

Review 1.  Revision rates after knee replacement. Cumulative results from worldwide clinical studies versus joint registers.

Authors:  C Pabinger; A Berghold; N Boehler; G Labek
Journal:  Osteoarthritis Cartilage       Date:  2012-12-06       Impact factor: 6.576

Review 2.  Quality of outcome data in knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Christof Pabinger; David Benjamin Lumenta; Daniel Cupak; Andrea Berghold; Nikolaus Boehler; Gerold Labek
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2014-09-05       Impact factor: 3.717

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.