Literature DB >> 33263453

Variation and trends in reasons for knee replacement revision: a multi-registry study of revision burden.

Peter L Lewis1,2, Otto Robertsson3,2, Stephan E Graves1, Elizabeth W Paxton4, Heather A Prentice4, Annette W-Dahl3,2.   

Abstract

Background and purpose - Studies describing time-related change in reasons for knee replacement revision have been limited to single regions or institutions, commonly analyze only 1st revisions, and may not reflect true caseloads or findings from other areas. We used revision procedure data from 3 arthroplasty registries to determine trends and differences in knee replacement revision diagnoses.Patients and methods - We obtained aggregated data for 78,151 revision knee replacement procedures recorded by the Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Register (SKAR), the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR), and the Kaiser Permanente Joint Replacement Registry (KPJRR) for the period 2003-2017. Equivalent diagnosis groups were created. We calculated the annual proportions of the most common reasons for revision.Results - Infection, loosening, and instability were among the 5 most common reasons for revision but magnitude and ranking varied between registries. Over time there were increases in proportions of revisions for infection and decreases in revisions for wear. There were inconsistent proportions and trends for the other reasons for revision. The incidence of revision for infection showed a uniform increase.Interpretation - Despite some differences in terminology, comparison of registry-recorded revision diagnoses is possible, but defining a single reason for revision is not always clear-cut. There were common increases in revision for infection and decreases in revision for wear, but variable changes in other categories. This may reflect regional practice differences and therefore generalizability of studies regarding reasons for revision is unwise.

Entities:  

Year:  2020        PMID: 33263453     DOI: 10.1080/17453674.2020.1853340

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acta Orthop        ISSN: 1745-3674            Impact factor:   3.717


  4 in total

1.  Impact of patient and prosthesis characteristics on common reasons for total knee replacement revision: a registry study of 36,626 revision cases from Australia, Sweden, and USA.

Authors:  Peter L Lewis; Annette W-Dahl; Otto Robertsson; Heather A Prentice; Stephen E Graves
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2022-07-05       Impact factor: 3.925

2.  Tibiofemoral dynamic stressed gap laxities correlate with compartment load measurements in robotic arm-assisted total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Richard J Allom; Jil A Wood; Darren B Chen; Samuel J MacDessi
Journal:  Bone Jt Open       Date:  2021-11

3.  Evolving etiologies and rates of revision total knee arthroplasty: a 10-year institutional report.

Authors:  Matthew L Brown; Pooya Javidan; Sam Early; William Bugbee
Journal:  Arthroplasty       Date:  2022-08-25

4.  The effect of patient and prosthesis factors on revision rates after total knee replacement using a multi-registry meta-analytic approach.

Authors:  Peter L Lewis; Annette W-Dahl; Otto Robertsson; Michelle Lorimer; Heather A Prentice; Stephen E Graves; Elizabeth W Paxton
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2022-02-01       Impact factor: 3.717

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.