Abstract
The aim of this study was to ascertain if a correlation exists between the indication for revision and the clinical outcome in revision total knee replacement.
Methods: We analysed the data of 81 revision knee arthroplasty patients performed at Wrightington Hospital with an average follow-up of 31 months (1yr – 6yrs). All patients had semi-constrained prosthesis implanted (PS-PFC or TC3, Depuy). The indications for revising the total knee arthroplasty in each patient were noted and the clinical outcome was determined using a patient satisfaction questionnaire.
Results: Of the 81 patients, 18 were enthusiastic with the clinical outcome, 38 were satisfied, eight were non-committal and 17 were disappointed. Indications for revision in our series were aseptic loosening (31 patients), implant failure (21 patients), instability (14 patients), pain (eight patients) and infection (seven patients). Correlation between the indication for revision and the clinical outcome are detailed in the table below.
Sixteen per cent of patients revised for aseptic loosening were non-committal or disappointed with the outcome in comparison with 33.3% revised for implant failure, 21.4% revised for instability, 62.5% revised for pain and 71.4% revised for infection.
Conclusion: The indication for revision does affect the clinical outcome in revision knee arthroplasty. Patients undergoing revision knee arthroplasty for infection and pain are less likely to be satisfied with the clinical outcome of revision surgery.
The abstracts were prepared by Mr Roger Smith. Correspondence should be addressed to him care of the British Orthopaedic Association, Royal College of Surgeons, 35-43 Lincoln’s Inn Fields, London WC2A 3PN.
