The indication for aseptic revision TKA does not influence 1-year outcomes: an analysis of 178 full TKA revisions from a prospective institutional registry.

IF 2.5 2区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS
Siri B Winther, Gøril Lund Snorroeggen, Jomar Klaksvik, Olav A Foss, Tarjei Egeberg, Tina Strømdal Wik, Otto S Husby
{"title":"The indication for aseptic revision TKA does not influence 1-year outcomes: an analysis of 178 full TKA revisions from a prospective institutional registry.","authors":"Siri B Winther,&nbsp;Gøril Lund Snorroeggen,&nbsp;Jomar Klaksvik,&nbsp;Olav A Foss,&nbsp;Tarjei Egeberg,&nbsp;Tina Strømdal Wik,&nbsp;Otto S Husby","doi":"10.2340/17453674.2022.4878","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and purpose: </strong>Outcomes following revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) may depend on the indication for revision surgery. We compared pain, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and patient satisfaction among different indications for an aseptic TKA revision.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>This was a retrospective study of prospective data from an institutional registry of 178 primary TKAs revised between 2012 and 2020. Patients were grouped by the main reason for their revision: loosening, malposition, instability, or stiffness. Pain during mobilization and at rest (NRS 0-10), physical function (KOOS-PS and KSS), and quality of life (EQ-5D) were surveyed preoperatively and at 2 months and 1 year postoperatively. Patient satisfaction was evaluated through questions related to knee function and their willingness to undergo the same surgery again at 1-year follow-up.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Pain and PROMs improved in all groups and did not differ statistically significantly between the 4 groups at 1-year follow-up, but equivalence for pain was not confirmed between groups. Overall, pain during mobilization improved by 2.4 (95% CI 1.9-3.0) at 1-year follow-up, which was both clinically and statistically significant. Improvements were seen within 2 months of surgery, with no further improvements seen 1 year postoperatively. Approximately 2/3 of patients reported that their knee function had improved and would undergo the same surgery again, at 1-year follow-up.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Statistically significant and clinically relevant improvements in pain and PROMs were seen in all 4 revision groups 1 year after revision TKA. These results may assist clinicians and patients during preoperative counselling.</p>","PeriodicalId":6916,"journal":{"name":"Acta Orthopaedica","volume":"93 ","pages":"819-825"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/48/74/ActaO-93-4878.PMC9585615.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Orthopaedica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2340/17453674.2022.4878","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background and purpose: Outcomes following revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) may depend on the indication for revision surgery. We compared pain, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and patient satisfaction among different indications for an aseptic TKA revision.

Patients and methods: This was a retrospective study of prospective data from an institutional registry of 178 primary TKAs revised between 2012 and 2020. Patients were grouped by the main reason for their revision: loosening, malposition, instability, or stiffness. Pain during mobilization and at rest (NRS 0-10), physical function (KOOS-PS and KSS), and quality of life (EQ-5D) were surveyed preoperatively and at 2 months and 1 year postoperatively. Patient satisfaction was evaluated through questions related to knee function and their willingness to undergo the same surgery again at 1-year follow-up.

Results: Pain and PROMs improved in all groups and did not differ statistically significantly between the 4 groups at 1-year follow-up, but equivalence for pain was not confirmed between groups. Overall, pain during mobilization improved by 2.4 (95% CI 1.9-3.0) at 1-year follow-up, which was both clinically and statistically significant. Improvements were seen within 2 months of surgery, with no further improvements seen 1 year postoperatively. Approximately 2/3 of patients reported that their knee function had improved and would undergo the same surgery again, at 1-year follow-up.

Conclusion: Statistically significant and clinically relevant improvements in pain and PROMs were seen in all 4 revision groups 1 year after revision TKA. These results may assist clinicians and patients during preoperative counselling.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

无菌修订TKA的适应症不影响1年的结果:来自前瞻性机构注册的178个完整TKA修订的分析。
背景和目的:翻修全膝关节置换术(TKA)后的结果可能取决于翻修手术的指征。我们比较了无菌TKA改良的不同适应症的疼痛、患者报告的结果测量(PROMs)和患者满意度。患者和方法:这是一项回顾性研究,对2012年至2020年期间修订的178例原发性tka的机构注册数据进行前瞻性研究。患者按其翻修的主要原因进行分组:松动、错位、不稳定或僵硬。术前、术后2个月和1年分别对活动时和静止时疼痛(NRS 0-10)、身体功能(KOOS-PS和KSS)和生活质量(EQ-5D)进行调查。在1年的随访中,通过与膝关节功能相关的问题和他们再次接受相同手术的意愿来评估患者满意度。结果:各组疼痛和PROMs均有改善,随访1年,4组间无统计学差异,但组间疼痛等效性未得到证实。总体而言,在1年随访中,活动时疼痛改善了2.4 (95% CI 1.9-3.0),这在临床和统计学上都具有显著意义。术后2个月内观察到改善,术后1年未见进一步改善。大约2/3的患者报告他们的膝关节功能得到改善,并将在1年的随访中再次接受相同的手术。结论:4个改良组在改良TKA后1年疼痛和PROMs均有统计学意义和临床相关的改善。这些结果可能有助于临床医生和患者在术前咨询。
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
Acta Orthopaedica
Acta Orthopaedica 医学-整形外科
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
8.10%
发文量
105
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Acta Orthopaedica (previously Acta Orthopaedica Scandinavica) presents original articles of basic research interest, as well as clinical studies in the field of orthopedics and related sub disciplines. Ever since the journal was founded in 1930, by a group of Scandinavian orthopedic surgeons, the journal has been published for an international audience. Acta Orthopaedica is owned by the Nordic Orthopaedic Federation and is the official publication of this federation.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信