Kevin Deere1, Michael R Whitehouse1,2, Setor K Kunutsor1,2, Adrian Sayers1, Andrew J Price3, James Mason4, Ashley W Blom1,2. 1. Musculoskeletal Research Unit, Translational Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, 1st Floor Learning & Research Building, Southmead Hospital, Bristol, BS10 5NB, UK. 2. National Institute for Health Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust and University of Bristol. 3. Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, Botnar Research Centre, Windmill Road, Oxford, OX3 7LD, UK. 4. Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Knee replacements are common and effective operations but patients that undergo this intervention are at risk of needing subsequent costly and often complex revision surgery with poorer outcomes than primary surgery. The treatment pathway over the life of the patient in terms of risk of revision and re-revision(s) is poorly described. We aim to provide detailed information on the longevity of revision surgery. METHODS: This was a retrospective observational registry-based study of the National Joint Registry. Kaplan-Meier estimates were used to determine the cumulative probability of revision and subsequent re-revision(s) following primary knee replacement. Analyses were stratified by age and gender and the influence of time from first to second revision on the risk of further revision was explored. FINDINGS: There were 33,292 revision knee replacements with a linked primary episode. Revision rates of revision knee replacements were higher in males and younger patients. 19·9% of revisions were revised again within 13 years, 20·7% of second revisions were revised again within 5 years and 20·7% of third revisions were revised again within 3 years. A shorter time between revision episodes was associated with earlier subsequent revision. INTERPRETATION: Males and younger patients are at higher risk of multiple revisions. Patients who undergo a revision have steadily increasing risk of further revision the more procedures they undergo, and each subsequent revision lasts for approximately half the time of the previous one. FUNDING: This study was supported by the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at University Hospitals Bristol and Weston National Health Service Foundation Trust and the University of Bristol. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. This study was also supported by funding from Healthcare Quality Improvement Partnership and the National Joint Registry. Posts of authors of this work are part funded by a grant from the National Joint Registry to conduct statistical analysis for the National Joint Registry. AS was funded by a Medical Research Council Strategic Skills Fellowship MR/L01226X/1.
BACKGROUND: Knee replacements are common and effective operations but patients that undergo this intervention are at risk of needing subsequent costly and often complex revision surgery with poorer outcomes than primary surgery. The treatment pathway over the life of the patient in terms of risk of revision and re-revision(s) is poorly described. We aim to provide detailed information on the longevity of revision surgery. METHODS: This was a retrospective observational registry-based study of the National Joint Registry. Kaplan-Meier estimates were used to determine the cumulative probability of revision and subsequent re-revision(s) following primary knee replacement. Analyses were stratified by age and gender and the influence of time from first to second revision on the risk of further revision was explored. FINDINGS: There were 33,292 revision knee replacements with a linked primary episode. Revision rates of revision knee replacements were higher in males and younger patients. 19·9% of revisions were revised again within 13 years, 20·7% of second revisions were revised again within 5 years and 20·7% of third revisions were revised again within 3 years. A shorter time between revision episodes was associated with earlier subsequent revision. INTERPRETATION: Males and younger patients are at higher risk of multiple revisions. Patients who undergo a revision have steadily increasing risk of further revision the more procedures they undergo, and each subsequent revision lasts for approximately half the time of the previous one. FUNDING: This study was supported by the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at University Hospitals Bristol and Weston National Health Service Foundation Trust and the University of Bristol. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. This study was also supported by funding from Healthcare Quality Improvement Partnership and the National Joint Registry. Posts of authors of this work are part funded by a grant from the National Joint Registry to conduct statistical analysis for the National Joint Registry. AS was funded by a Medical Research Council Strategic Skills Fellowship MR/L01226X/1.
Authors: Alexander W R Burns; Robert B Bourne; Bert M Chesworth; Steven J MacDonald; Cecil H Rorabeck Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2006-05 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Dawn Stacey; France Légaré; Krystina Lewis; Michael J Barry; Carol L Bennett; Karen B Eden; Margaret Holmes-Rovner; Hilary Llewellyn-Thomas; Anne Lyddiatt; Richard Thomson; Lyndal Trevena Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2017-04-12
Authors: Eric R Wagner; Kevin X Farley; Ixavier Higgins; Jacob M Wilson; Charles A Daly; Michael B Gottschalk Journal: J Shoulder Elbow Surg Date: 2020-06-09 Impact factor: 3.019
Authors: Michael B Geary; David M Macknet; Michael P Ransone; Susan D Odum; Bryan D Springer Journal: J Arthroplasty Date: 2020-05-28 Impact factor: 4.757
Authors: Lee E Bayliss; David Culliford; A Paul Monk; Sion Glyn-Jones; Daniel Prieto-Alhambra; Andrew Judge; Cyrus Cooper; Andrew J Carr; Nigel K Arden; David J Beard; Andrew J Price Journal: Lancet Date: 2017-02-14 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Erik Lenguerrand; Vikki Wylde; Rachael Gooberman-Hill; Adrian Sayers; Luke Brunton; Andrew D Beswick; Paul Dieppe; Ashley W Blom Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-02-12 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Markus Weber; Tobias Renkawitz; Florian Voellner; Benjamin Craiovan; Felix Greimel; Michael Worlicek; Joachim Grifka; Achim Benditz Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2018-09-25 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Michal Grela; Matthew Barrett; Setor K Kunutsor; Ashley W Blom; Michael R Whitehouse; Gulraj S Matharu Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2022-10-22 Impact factor: 2.562