Tesfaye H Leta1,2, Stein Håkon L Lygre3, Arne Skredderstuen4, Geir Hallan4, Jan-Erik Gjertsen4,5, Berit Rokne6,7, Ove Furnes4,5. 1. The Norwegian Arthroplasty Register, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway. tesfaye.hordofa.leta@helse-bergen.no. 2. Department of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway. tesfaye.hordofa.leta@helse-bergen.no. 3. Department of Occupational Medicine, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway. 4. The Norwegian Arthroplasty Register, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway. 5. Department of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway. 6. Department of Research and Development, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway. 7. Department of Global Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
Abstract
PURPOSE: In Norway, 19 % of revisions of non-resurfaced total knee arthroplasties done for knee pain between 1994 and 2011 were Secondary Patella Resurfacing (SPR). It is, however, unclear whether SPR actually resolves the pain. The aim was to investigate prostheses survival and clinical outcomes following SPR. METHOD: A total of 308 knees (301 patients) with SPR were used to assess implant survival, and a sub-cohort (n = 114 out of 301 patients) with Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) data were used to assess the clinical outcomes. The EuroQol (EQ-5D), the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, and Visual Analogue Scales on satisfaction and pain were used to collect PROM data. Outcomes were analysed by Kaplan-Meier, Cox regression, and multiple linear regression. RESULTS: The five- and ten-year Kaplan-Meier survival percentages were 91 % and 87 %, respectively. Overall, 35 knees were re-revised at a median follow-up of eight years and pain alone (10 knees) was the main cause of re-revision. Younger patients (<60 years) had nearly nine times higher risk of re-revision compared to older patients (>70 years) (RR = 8.6; p < 0.001). Mean EQ-5D index score had improved from 0.41 (SD 0.21) preoperative to 0.56 (SD 0.25) postoperative following SPR. A total of 63 % of patients with PROM data were satisfied with the outcomes of SPR. CONCLUSION: The long-term prostheses survival following SPR was satisfactory, although not as good as for primary knee replacement. Patients' health related quality of life improved significantly following SPR. Still, more than a third of patients with PROMs data were dissatisfied with the outcomes of the SPR procedure.
PURPOSE: In Norway, 19 % of revisions of non-resurfaced total knee arthroplasties done for knee pain between 1994 and 2011 were Secondary Patella Resurfacing (SPR). It is, however, unclear whether SPR actually resolves the pain. The aim was to investigate prostheses survival and clinical outcomes following SPR. METHOD: A total of 308 knees (301 patients) with SPR were used to assess implant survival, and a sub-cohort (n = 114 out of 301 patients) with Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) data were used to assess the clinical outcomes. The EuroQol (EQ-5D), the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, and Visual Analogue Scales on satisfaction and pain were used to collect PROM data. Outcomes were analysed by Kaplan-Meier, Cox regression, and multiple linear regression. RESULTS: The five- and ten-year Kaplan-Meier survival percentages were 91 % and 87 %, respectively. Overall, 35 knees were re-revised at a median follow-up of eight years and pain alone (10 knees) was the main cause of re-revision. Younger patients (<60 years) had nearly nine times higher risk of re-revision compared to older patients (>70 years) (RR = 8.6; p < 0.001). Mean EQ-5D index score had improved from 0.41 (SD 0.21) preoperative to 0.56 (SD 0.25) postoperative following SPR. A total of 63 % of patients with PROM data were satisfied with the outcomes of SPR. CONCLUSION: The long-term prostheses survival following SPR was satisfactory, although not as good as for primary knee replacement. Patients' health related quality of life improved significantly following SPR. Still, more than a third of patients with PROMs data were dissatisfied with the outcomes of the SPR procedure.
Authors: Wolfgang Greiner; Tom Weijnen; Martin Nieuwenhuizen; Siem Oppe; Xavier Badia; Jan Busschbach; Martin Buxton; Paul Dolan; Paul Kind; Paul Krabbe; Arto Ohinmaa; David Parkin; Montserat Roset; Harri Sintonen; Aki Tsuchiya; Frank de Charro Journal: Eur J Health Econ Date: 2003-09
Authors: Javad Parvizi; Venkat R Rapuri; Khaled J Saleh; Michael A Kuskowski; Peter F Sharkey; Michael A Mont Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2005-09 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Birgitte Espehaug; Ove Furnes; Leif I Havelin; Lars B Engesaeter; Stein E Vollset; Ola Kindseth Journal: Acta Orthop Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 3.717
Authors: João Correia; Marc Sieder; Daniel Kendoff; Mustafa Citak; Thorsten Gehrke; Wolfgang Klauser; Carl Haasper Journal: Open Orthop J Date: 2012-09-07
Authors: Bart J Robben; Astrid J De Vries; Anneke Spekenbrink-Spooren; Rob G H H Nelissen; Reinoud W Brouwer Journal: Acta Orthop Date: 2022-02-14 Impact factor: 3.717
Authors: Shiraz A Sabah; Elizabeth A Hedge; Simon G F Abram; Abtin Alvand; Andrew J Price; Sally Hopewell Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-10-21 Impact factor: 2.692