Revision of unicondylar knee arthroplasty: an analysis of failure rates and contributing factors.

Q2 Medicine
Dominik Szymski, Josina Straub, Nike Walter, Yinan Wu, Oliver Melsheimer, Alexander Grimberg, Volker Alt, Arnd Steinbrueck, Markus Rupp
{"title":"Revision of unicondylar knee arthroplasty: an analysis of failure rates and contributing factors.","authors":"Dominik Szymski, Josina Straub, Nike Walter, Yinan Wu, Oliver Melsheimer, Alexander Grimberg, Volker Alt, Arnd Steinbrueck, Markus Rupp","doi":"10.1186/s43019-025-00276-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The implantation rate of knee arthroplasty and, in particular of unicondylar knee arthroplasty (UKA), is increasing, and revision is a feared complication. The aim of this study was to identify factors influencing aseptic and septic revision that are of high interest for establishing preventive measures.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data were collected using the German Arthroplasty Registry (EPRD). Patients with UKA were analyzed using the multiple Log-rank test with Holm's method. Septic and aseptic revisions were calculated using Kaplan-Meier estimates. In total, 300,998 cases of knee arthroplasty were identified in the registry, and 36,861 patients with UKA were analyzed with a maximum follow-up of 7 years.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The primary reason for UKA revision surgery was aseptic loosening (32.5%), particularly loosening of the tibial component (19.0%), followed by infection (11.0%) and the progression of arthritis (10.0%). Over 7 years, 8.7% of UKA procedures required revision, 7.8% for aseptic causes and 0.9% for infection. Risk factors for aseptic revision included uncemented implants [hazard ratio (HR) 1.38] and low annual surgical volume (fewer than 25 UKAs/year, HR 1.86; fewer than 50 UKAs/year, HR 1.43). Significant risks for septic revision were grade III obesity (HR 1.83), male sex (HR 1.69), and high comorbidity scores (Elixhauser > 5, HR 1.67). The surgical volume did not affect septic revision rates.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Aseptic loosening is the primary cause of UKA revision, influenced by implant type and low surgical volume, while septic revisions are associated with patient factors such as obesity, male sex, and comorbidities. Improvements in implant selection, surgical expertise, and patient risk management may reduce revision rates.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>III, retrospective case-control study.</p>","PeriodicalId":36317,"journal":{"name":"Knee Surgery and Related Research","volume":"37 1","pages":"25"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12103046/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Knee Surgery and Related Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s43019-025-00276-3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The implantation rate of knee arthroplasty and, in particular of unicondylar knee arthroplasty (UKA), is increasing, and revision is a feared complication. The aim of this study was to identify factors influencing aseptic and septic revision that are of high interest for establishing preventive measures.

Methods: Data were collected using the German Arthroplasty Registry (EPRD). Patients with UKA were analyzed using the multiple Log-rank test with Holm's method. Septic and aseptic revisions were calculated using Kaplan-Meier estimates. In total, 300,998 cases of knee arthroplasty were identified in the registry, and 36,861 patients with UKA were analyzed with a maximum follow-up of 7 years.

Results: The primary reason for UKA revision surgery was aseptic loosening (32.5%), particularly loosening of the tibial component (19.0%), followed by infection (11.0%) and the progression of arthritis (10.0%). Over 7 years, 8.7% of UKA procedures required revision, 7.8% for aseptic causes and 0.9% for infection. Risk factors for aseptic revision included uncemented implants [hazard ratio (HR) 1.38] and low annual surgical volume (fewer than 25 UKAs/year, HR 1.86; fewer than 50 UKAs/year, HR 1.43). Significant risks for septic revision were grade III obesity (HR 1.83), male sex (HR 1.69), and high comorbidity scores (Elixhauser > 5, HR 1.67). The surgical volume did not affect septic revision rates.

Conclusion: Aseptic loosening is the primary cause of UKA revision, influenced by implant type and low surgical volume, while septic revisions are associated with patient factors such as obesity, male sex, and comorbidities. Improvements in implant selection, surgical expertise, and patient risk management may reduce revision rates.

Level of evidence: III, retrospective case-control study.

单髁膝关节置换术的翻修:失败率及影响因素分析。
背景:膝关节置换术,特别是单髁膝关节置换术(UKA)的植入率正在增加,翻修是一个令人恐惧的并发症。本研究的目的是确定影响无菌和脓毒症修复的因素,这些因素对建立预防措施非常重要。方法:使用德国关节置换术登记处(EPRD)收集数据。对UKA患者进行多重Log-rank检验,采用Holm方法。用Kaplan-Meier估计法计算脓毒性和无菌性修正。总共有300,998例膝关节置换术在登记中被确定,36,861例UKA患者被分析,最长随访7年。结果:UKA翻修手术的主要原因是无菌性松动(32.5%),尤其是胫骨部件松动(19.0%),其次是感染(11.0%)和关节炎进展(10.0%)。在7年中,8.7%的UKA程序需要修改,7.8%为无菌原因,0.9%为感染原因。无菌翻修的危险因素包括未胶结种植体[危险比(HR) 1.38]和低年手术量(少于25 UKAs/年,HR 1.86;少于50个UKAs/年,HR 1.43)。脓毒症翻修的显著风险是III级肥胖(HR 1.83)、男性(HR 1.69)和高合并症评分(Elixhauser bb0.5, HR 1.67)。手术量不影响脓毒性修复率。结论:无菌性松动是UKA翻修的主要原因,受植入物类型和小手术量的影响,而脓毒性翻修与肥胖、男性和合共病等患者因素有关。种植体选择、手术专业知识和患者风险管理方面的改进可能会降低翻修率。证据等级:III,回顾性病例对照研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
42
审稿时长
19 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信