Taylor M Yong1, Emily C Young2, Ilda B Molloy1, Brian M Fisher3, Benjamin J Keeney4, Wayne E Moschetti1. 1. Department of Orthopaedics, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH; Geisel School of Medicine, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH. 2. Geisel School of Medicine, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH. 3. Department of Orthopaedics, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH. 4. Department of Orthopaedics, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH; Geisel School of Medicine, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH; Berkley Medical Management Solutions, Overland Park, KS.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is limited evidence describing long-term implant survivorship and modes of failure in simultaneous concurrent bilateral total knee arthroplasty (TKA). METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of 266 consecutive patients (532 knees) who underwent simultaneous concurrent bilateral TKA. We reviewed medical records for preoperative characteristics, perioperative complications, and revision surgeries. The primary outcome was TKA survivorship. Secondary outcomes included indication and type of revision surgery. We used the Kaplan-Meier method to estimate survivorship and characterize risk of revision up to 20 years post-TKA. RESULTS: Our cohort had median follow-up of 9.8 years (interquartile range, 3.9-15.9). Forty-four patients (17%) underwent revision. Revision was more common among younger and male patients. The cumulative incidence of first-time revision per knee (n = 532) was 1.27 per 100 component-years. Implant survival was 99% (confidence interval, 97%-99%) at 5 years, 92% (89%-95%) at 10 years, 83% (77%-87%) at 15 years, and 62% (50%-73%) at 20 years. Five and 10-year survivorship compared favorably to estimates of TKA survivorship in the literature. The cumulative incidence of revision surgery per patient was 1.91 per 100 component-years. Implant survival at 5-, 10-, 15-, and 20-year time points was 96% (CI, 92%-98%), 84% (77%-89%), 71% (62%-79%), and 59% (46%-70%), respectively. Aseptic loosening (40%), polyethylene wear (34%), and infection (11%) were the most common indications for revision. CONCLUSION: Simultaneous concurrent bilateral TKA is associated with a higher risk of reoperation for the patient when both knees are evaluated but similar implant survivorship to the literature when each knee was evaluated in isolation.
BACKGROUND: There is limited evidence describing long-term implant survivorship and modes of failure in simultaneous concurrent bilateral total knee arthroplasty (TKA). METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of 266 consecutive patients (532 knees) who underwent simultaneous concurrent bilateral TKA. We reviewed medical records for preoperative characteristics, perioperative complications, and revision surgeries. The primary outcome was TKA survivorship. Secondary outcomes included indication and type of revision surgery. We used the Kaplan-Meier method to estimate survivorship and characterize risk of revision up to 20 years post-TKA. RESULTS: Our cohort had median follow-up of 9.8 years (interquartile range, 3.9-15.9). Forty-four patients (17%) underwent revision. Revision was more common among younger and male patients. The cumulative incidence of first-time revision per knee (n = 532) was 1.27 per 100 component-years. Implant survival was 99% (confidence interval, 97%-99%) at 5 years, 92% (89%-95%) at 10 years, 83% (77%-87%) at 15 years, and 62% (50%-73%) at 20 years. Five and 10-year survivorship compared favorably to estimates of TKA survivorship in the literature. The cumulative incidence of revision surgery per patient was 1.91 per 100 component-years. Implant survival at 5-, 10-, 15-, and 20-year time points was 96% (CI, 92%-98%), 84% (77%-89%), 71% (62%-79%), and 59% (46%-70%), respectively. Aseptic loosening (40%), polyethylene wear (34%), and infection (11%) were the most common indications for revision. CONCLUSION: Simultaneous concurrent bilateral TKA is associated with a higher risk of reoperation for the patient when both knees are evaluated but similar implant survivorship to the literature when each knee was evaluated in isolation.
Authors: Matthew B Collier; C Anderson Engh; James P Mcauley; Stuart D Ginn; Gerard A Engh Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Michael B Vessely; Andrew L Whaley; W Scott Harmsen; Cathy D Schleck; Daniel J Berry Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Ali H Sobh; Matthew P Siljander; Anthony J Mells; Denise M Koueiter; Drew D Moore; Mark S Karadsheh Journal: J Arthroplasty Date: 2017-09-13 Impact factor: 4.757
Authors: Jaiben George; Alison K Klika; Suparna M Navale; Jared M Newman; Wael K Barsoum; Carlos A Higuera Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2017-07 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Michael Pitta; Christina I Esposito; Zhichang Li; Yuo-Yu Lee; Timothy M Wright; Douglas E Padgett Journal: J Arthroplasty Date: 2017-09-25 Impact factor: 4.757
Authors: Jonathan T Evans; Robert W Walker; Jonathan P Evans; Ashley W Blom; Adrian Sayers; Michael R Whitehouse Journal: Lancet Date: 2019-02-14 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Kevin J Bozic; Steven M Kurtz; Edmund Lau; Kevin Ong; Vanessa Chiu; Thomas P Vail; Harry E Rubash; Daniel J Berry Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2009-06-25 Impact factor: 4.176