Revision Surgery After Total Joint Arthroplasty: A Complication-Based Analysis Using Worldwide Arthroplasty Registers
TL;DR: Revisions in TKA and THA differ with respect to type of complication, however, in case of TAA, higher rates of technically related complications are reported, and the most common causes were aseptic loosening, technical errors, pain, and others.
Abstract: The authors performed a complication-based analysis of total knee (TKA), total hip (THA), and total ankle arthroplasty (TAA) using worldwide arthroplasty registers. We extracted data with respect to reason for revision surgery and pooled causes. The most common causes for revisions in THA were aseptic loosening (55.2%), dislocation (11.8 %), septic loosening (7.5%), periprosthetic fractures (6%), and others. The most common causes in TKA were aseptic loosening (29.8%), septic loosening (14.8%), pain (9.5%), wear (8.2%), and others. The most common causes in TAA were aseptic loosening (38%), technical errors (15%), pain (12%), septic loosening (9.8%), and others. Revisions in TKA and THA differ with respect to type of complication. However, in case of TAA, higher rates of technically related complications are reported.
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: A current concepts review on the epidemiology of failed TKAs using data from worldwide National Joint Registries is presented.
Abstract: Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a cost effective and extremely successful operation. As longevity increases, the demand for primary TKA will continue to rise. The success and survivorship of TKAs are dependent on the demographics of the patient, surgical technique and implant-related factors. Currently the risk of failure of a TKA requiring revision surgery ten years post-operatively is 5%. The most common indications for revision include aseptic loosening (29.8%), infection (14.8%), and pain (9.5%). Revision surgery poses considerable clinical burdens on patients and financial burdens on healthcare systems. We present a current concepts review on the epidemiology of failed TKAs using data from worldwide National Joint Registries.
225 citations
TL;DR: In a specialized arthroplasty center periprosthetic joint infection was the most common reason for revision and re-revision TKA, in contrast to population-based registry data and has consequences on costs as well as on success rates in such centers.
Abstract: The number of revision Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA) is rising in many countries. The aim of this study was the prospective assessment of the underlying causes leading to revision TKA in a tertiary care hospital and the comparison of those reasons with previously published data. In this study patients who had revision TKA between 2010 and 2015 were prospectively included. Revision causes were categorized using all available information from patients’ records including preoperative diagnostics, intraoperative findings as well as the results of the periprosthetic tissue analysis. According to previous studies patients were divided into early (up to 2 years) and late revision (more than 2 years). Additional also re-revisions after already performed revision TKA were included. We assessed 312 patients who underwent 402 revision TKA, 89.6% of them were referred to our center for revision surgery. In 289 patients (71.9%) this was the first revision surgery after primary TKA. Among the first revisions the majority was late revisions (73.7%). One hundred thirteen patients (28.1%) had already had one or more revision surgeries before. Overall, the most frequent reason for revision was infection (36.1%) followed by aseptic loosening (21.9%) and periprosthetic fracture (13.7%). In a specialized arthroplasty center periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) was the most common reason for revision and re-revision TKA. This is in contrast to population-based registry data and has consequences on costs as well as on success rates in such centers.
198 citations
Cites background from "Revision Surgery After Total Joint ..."
...However, PJI are the most challenging complications after TKA and should be treated in specialized centers with experience and sufficient resources [12, 18, 20]....
[...]
TL;DR: Patients undergoing THA are exposed to opioids for long periods of time, putting them at high risk of harm related to opioid use, and groups at risk of chronic opioid use are identified, including younger patients and women.
Abstract: Objectives To determine chronic opioid use pre-THA (total hip arthroplasty) and post-THA, and risk factors for persistent or new chronic opioid use post-THA. Design Retrospective cohort study. Setting Australian Government Department of Veterans9 Affairs health claims database. Participants 9525 patients who had an elective unilateral THA between 1/01/2001 and 12/31/2012. Primary outcome measure Chronic opioid use. Defined as 90 days of continuous opioid use or 120 days of non-continuous use. Results Pre-THA, 6.2% (n=593) of patients were chronic users, while 5.2% (n=492) were post-THA. Among the 492 postoperative chronic users, 302 (61%) were chronic users pre-THA and post-THA and 190 (39%) became new chronic users after surgery. Risk factors for persistent chronic use were younger age (OR=0.96, 95% CI 0.93 to 0.99/1-year increment), back pain (OR=1.99, 95% CI 1.20 to 3.23), diabetes (OR=3.52, 95% CI 1.05 to 11.8), hypnotics use (OR=2.52, 95% CI 1.48 to 4.30) and higher pre-THA opioid exposure (compared with opioid use for 94–157 days, 157–224 days (OR=3.75, 95% CI 2.28 to 6.18), 225+ days (OR=5.18, 95% CI 2.92 to 9.19). Risk factors for new chronic opioid use post-THA were being a woman (OR=1.40, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.96), back pain (OR=3.90, 95% CI 2.85 to 5.33), depression (OR=1.70, 95% CI 1.20 to 2.41), gastric acid disease (OR=1.62, 95% CI 1.16 to 2.25), migraine (OR=5.11, 95% CI 1.08 to 24.18), liver disease (OR=4.33, 95% CI 1.08 to 17.35), weight loss (OR=2.60, 95% CI 1.06 to 6.39), dementia (OR=2.19, 95% CI 1.04 to 4.61), hyperlipidaemia (OR=1.38, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.91), hypnotics (OR=1.56, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.16) and antineuropathic pain medication use (OR=3.11, 95% CI 2.05 to 4.72). Conclusions Patients undergoing THA are exposed to opioids for long periods of time, putting them at high risk of harm related to opioid use. We identified groups at risk of chronic opioid use, including younger patients and women, as well as modifiable risk factors of chronic opioid use, including level of opioid exposure presurgery and hypnotic use. These indicators of chronic opioid use can be used by clinicians to target patient groups for suitable pain management interventions.
162 citations
TL;DR: Patients undergoing a lower-extremity total joint arthroplasty who engage in impact sports should be counseled regarding their potential increased risk of aseptic loosening; however, given the weak evidence available, it is believed that higher-level studies are necessary to clearly define the risk factors, particularly with newer-generation constructs.
Abstract: Background
Aseptic loosening is the most common cause for revisions after lower-extremity total joint arthroplasties, however studies differ regarding the degree to which host factors influence loosening.
140 citations
Cites background from "Revision Surgery After Total Joint ..."
...Aseptic loosening has been reported to be one of the most common causes for revisions, accounting for almost 55% of hip [47] and 31% of knee [49] revisions....
[...]
TL;DR: Utilizing a large, prospectively collected, national database, it is found that revision TKA for PJI has a greater risk of short-term morbidity and mortality and requires a higher utilization of healthcare resources.
Abstract: Background Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a devastating complication. The short-term morbidity profile of revision TKA performed for PJI relative to non-PJI revisions is poorly characterized. The purpose of this study is to determine 30-day postoperative outcomes after revision TKA for PJI, relative to primary TKA and aseptic revision TKA. Methods The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program from 2005 to 2015 was queried for primary and revision TKA cases. Revision TKA cases were categorized into PJI and non-PJI cohorts. Differences in 30-day outcomes including postoperative complications, readmissions, operative time, and length of stay were compared using bivariate and multivariate analyses. Results In total, 175,761 TKAs were included in this study, with 162,981 (92.7%) primary TKAs and 12,780 (7.3%) revision TKAs, of which 2196 (17.2%) revisions were performed for PJI. When compared to aseptic revision TKA, multivariate analysis demonstrated that PJI revisions had a significantly higher risk of major early postoperative complications including death (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 3.25) and sepsis (OR 8.73). In addition, nonhome discharge (OR 1.75), readmissions (OR 1.67), and length of stay (+2.1 days) were all greater relative to non-PJI revisions. Conclusion Utilizing a large, prospectively collected, national database, we found that revision TKA for PJI has a greater risk of short-term morbidity and mortality and requires a higher utilization of healthcare resources. These results have implications for patient counseling and alternative payment models that may eventually include revision TKA.
133 citations
References
More filters
TL;DR: Moher et al. as mentioned in this paper introduce PRISMA, an update of the QUOROM guidelines for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses, which is used in this paper.
Abstract: David Moher and colleagues introduce PRISMA, an update of the QUOROM guidelines for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses
62,157 citations
Journal Article•
TL;DR: The QUOROM Statement (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analyses) as mentioned in this paper was developed to address the suboptimal reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Abstract: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have become increasingly important in health care. Clinicians read them to keep up to date with their field,1,2 and they are often used as a starting point for developing clinical practice guidelines. Granting agencies may require a systematic review to ensure there is justification for further research,3 and some health care journals are moving in this direction.4 As with all research, the value of a systematic review depends on what was done, what was found, and the clarity of reporting. As with other publications, the reporting quality of systematic reviews varies, limiting readers' ability to assess the strengths and weaknesses of those reviews.
Several early studies evaluated the quality of review reports. In 1987, Mulrow examined 50 review articles published in 4 leading medical journals in 1985 and 1986 and found that none met all 8 explicit scientific criteria, such as a quality assessment of included studies.5 In 1987, Sacks and colleagues6 evaluated the adequacy of reporting of 83 meta-analyses on 23 characteristics in 6 domains. Reporting was generally poor; between 1 and 14 characteristics were adequately reported (mean = 7.7; standard deviation = 2.7). A 1996 update of this study found little improvement.7
In 1996, to address the suboptimal reporting of meta-analyses, an international group developed a guidance called the QUOROM Statement (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analyses), which focused on the reporting of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials.8 In this article, we summarize a revision of these guidelines, renamed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses), which have been updated to address several conceptual and practical advances in the science of systematic reviews (Box 1).
Box 1
Conceptual issues in the evolution from QUOROM to PRISMA
46,935 citations
TL;DR: PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) is introduced, an update of the QUOROM guidelines for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
Abstract: Moher and colleagues introduce PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses), an update of the QUOROM guidelines for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Us...
23,203 citations
17 Apr 2003
TL;DR: Comparing the socialist nature of many European counties, there is a requirement that provision be made for patients to be made whole regardless of the outcomes of the trial or if they happened to have been randomized to a control group that did not enjoy the benefits of a successful experimental intervention.
Abstract: Published research in English-language journals are increasingly required to carry a statement that the study has been approved and monitored by an Institutional Review Board in conformance with 45 CFR 46 standards if the study was conducted in the United States. Alternative language attesting conformity with the Helsinki Declaration is often included when the research was conducted in Europe or elsewhere. The Helsinki Declaration was created by the World Medical Association in 1964 (ten years before the Belmont Report) and has been amended several times. The Helsinki Declaration differs from its American version in several respects, the most significant of which is that it was developed by and for physicians. The term "patient" appears in many places where we would expect to see "subject." It is stated in several places that physicians must either conduct or have supervisory control of the research. The dual role of the physician-researcher is acknowledged, but it is made clear that the role of healer takes precedence over that of scientist. In the United States, the federal government developed and enforces regulations on researcher; in the rest of the world, the profession, or a significant part of it, took the initiative in defining and promoting good research practice, and governments in many countries have worked to harmonize their standards along these lines. The Helsinki Declaration is based less on key philosophical principles and more on prescriptive statements. Although there is significant overlap between the Belmont and the Helsinki guidelines, the latter extends much further into research design and publication. Elements in a research protocol, use of placebos, and obligation to enroll trials in public registries (to ensure that negative findings are not buried), and requirements to share findings with the research and professional communities are included in the Helsinki Declaration. As a practical matter, these are often part of the work of American IRBs, but not always as a formal requirement. Reflecting the socialist nature of many European counties, there is a requirement that provision be made for patients to be made whole regardless of the outcomes of the trial or if they happened to have been randomized to a control group that did not enjoy the benefits of a successful experimental intervention.
10,704 citations
Journal Article•
TL;DR: The Helsinki Declaration on Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects, adopted by the World Medical Assembly, is presented.
Abstract: WORLD MEDICAL ASSOCIATION DECLARATION OF HELSINKI Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects 世界医師会ヘルシンキ宣言 ヒトを対象とした医学研究の倫理原則 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------Adopted by the 18th WMA General Assembly, Helsinki, Finland, June 1964, and amended by the: 29th WMA General Assembly, Tokyo, Japan, October 1975 35th WMA General Assembly, Venice, Italy, October 1983 41st WMA General Assembly, Hong Kong, September 1989 48th WMA General Assembly, Somerset West, Republic of South Africa, October 1996 52nd WMA General Assembly, Edinburgh, Scotland, October 2000 53rd WMA General Assembly, Washington 2002 (Note of Clarification on paragraph 29 added) 55th WMA General Assembly, Tokyo 2004 (Note of Clarification on Paragraph 30 added) 59th WMA General Assembly, Seoul, October 2008 64th WMA General Assembly, Fortaleza, Brazil, October 2013
7,874 citations