Richard W Rutherford1, Jason M Jennings2, Daniel L Levy1, Thomas J Parisi1, J Ryan Martin3, Douglas A Dennis4. 1. Colorado Joint Replacement, Porter Adventist Hospital, Denver, Colorado. 2. Colorado Joint Replacement, Porter Adventist Hospital, Denver, Colorado; Department of Mechanical and Materials Engineering, Denver University, Denver, Colorado. 3. OrthoCarolina, Charlotte, North Carolina. 4. Colorado Joint Replacement, Porter Adventist Hospital, Denver, Colorado; Department of Mechanical and Materials Engineering, Denver University, Denver, Colorado; Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee; Department of Orthopaedics, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Denver, Colorado.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Arthrofibrosis after TKA is a significant cause of patient dissatisfaction. There is little evidence regarding revision arthroplasty in this patient population. The purpose of this study is to evaluate outcomes after revision TKA for arthrofibrosis. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 46 consecutive revision TKAs for arthrofibrosis between 2007 and 2015 with minimum 2-year follow-up. Range of motion (ROM), complication rates, and Knee Society Scores (KSS) were recorded. RESULTS: Patients were followed for a mean of 59 months. ROM and KSS significantly improved: with flexion improving from 88° to 103° and extension improving from 11° to 3° (P < .001). There was not a relationship between patient or surgical factors and outcomes in this study. The rate of complications was 28.2% with a 17.4% reoperation rate. CONCLUSION: While revision for arthrofibrosis after TKA can be associated with significant improvements in ROM and KSS, caution is advised given high rates of revisions, reoperations, and complications. Thirty percent of patients in this series had a decrease in one or more component of the KSS or a net decrease in arc of motion after revision surgery.
BACKGROUND: Arthrofibrosis after TKA is a significant cause of patient dissatisfaction. There is little evidence regarding revision arthroplasty in this patient population. The purpose of this study is to evaluate outcomes after revision TKA for arthrofibrosis. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 46 consecutive revision TKAs for arthrofibrosis between 2007 and 2015 with minimum 2-year follow-up. Range of motion (ROM), complication rates, and Knee Society Scores (KSS) were recorded. RESULTS:Patients were followed for a mean of 59 months. ROM and KSS significantly improved: with flexion improving from 88° to 103° and extension improving from 11° to 3° (P < .001). There was not a relationship between patient or surgical factors and outcomes in this study. The rate of complications was 28.2% with a 17.4% reoperation rate. CONCLUSION: While revision for arthrofibrosis after TKA can be associated with significant improvements in ROM and KSS, caution is advised given high rates of revisions, reoperations, and complications. Thirty percent of patients in this series had a decrease in one or more component of the KSS or a net decrease in arc of motion after revision surgery.
Authors: Meghan M Moran; Brittany M Wilson; Jun Li; Phillip A Engen; Ankur Naqib; Stefan J Green; Amarjit S Virdi; Anna Plaas; Christopher B Forsyth; Ali Keshavarzian; Dale R Sumner Journal: FASEB J Date: 2020-09-15 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Banu Bayram; Roman Thaler; Jacob W Bettencourt; Afton K Limberg; Kevin P Sheehan; Aaron R Owen; Daniel J Berry; Mark E Morrey; Joaquin Sanchez-Sotelo; Andre J van Wijnen; Amel Dudakovic; Matthew P Abdel Journal: J Cell Biochem Date: 2022-02-28 Impact factor: 4.480
Authors: Banu Bayram; Afton K Limberg; Christopher G Salib; Jacob W Bettencourt; William H Trousdale; Eric A Lewallen; Nicolas Reina; Christopher R Paradise; Roman Thaler; Mark E Morrey; Joaquin Sanchez-Sotelo; Daniel J Berry; Andre J van Wijnen; Matthew P Abdel Journal: Genomics Date: 2020-03-05 Impact factor: 5.736
Authors: Yunwei Xia; Upneet K Sokhi; Richard D Bell; Tania Pannellini; Kathleen Turajane; Yingzhen Niu; Laura Frye; Max Chao; Ugur Ayturk; Miguel Otero; Mathias Bostrom; David Oliver; Xu Yang; Lionel B Ivashkiv Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2021-06-20 Impact factor: 6.390
Authors: Aaron R Owen; Meagan E Tibbo; Andre J van Wijnen; Mark W Pagnano; Daniel J Berry; Matthew P Abdel Journal: J Arthroplasty Date: 2021-04-01 Impact factor: 4.435
Authors: Travis R Flick; Cindy X Wang; Akshar H Patel; Thomas W Hodo; William F Sherman; Fernando L Sanchez Journal: J Orthop Traumatol Date: 2021-01-05