Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Revision total knee arthroplasty for failed high tibial osteotomy and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty have similar patient-reported outcome measures in a two-year follow-up study.
Bone Joint J 2017; 99-B(10):1329-1334BJ

Abstract

AIMS

Little is known about the relative outcomes of revision of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) and high tibial osteotomy (HTO) to total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The aim of this study is to compare the outcomes of revision surgery for the two procedures in terms of complications, re-revision and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) at a minimum of two years follow-up.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This study was a retrospective review of data from an institutional arthroplasty registry for cases performed between 2001 and 2014. A total of 292 patients were identified, of which 217 had a revision of HTO to TKA, and 75 had revision of UKA to TKA. While mean follow-up was longer for the HTO group compared with the UKA group, patient demographics (age, body mass index and Charlson co-morbidity index) and PROMs (Short Form-36, Oxford Knee Score, Knee Society Score, both objective and functional) were similar in the two groups prior to revision surgery. Outcomes included the rate of complications and re-operation, PROMS and patient-reported satisfaction at six months and two years post-operatively. We also compared the duration of surgery and the need for revision implants in the two groups.

RESULTS

At two-year follow-up, both groups of patients had made significant improvement in terms of PROMs compared with pre-operative scores. PROMs and satisfaction rates were similar in the two groups. Complications requiring re-operation were significantly more frequent in the HTO group whilst more revision implants were used in the UKA group, resulting in a longer operative duration.

CONCLUSION

Revision of HTO and UKA achieve similar post-operative PROMs and satisfaction. Revision of UKA more frequently requires revision components with increased operation duration but fewer complications requiring re-operation compared with revision of HTO. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:1329-34.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Singapore General Hospital, Outram Road, S169608, Republic of Singapore.Singapore General Hospital, Outram Road, S169608, Republic of Singapore.Singapore General Hospital, Outram Road, S169608, Republic of Singapore.Singapore General Hospital, Outram Road, S169608, Republic of Singapore.Singapore General Hospital, Outram Road, S169608, Republic of Singapore.Singapore General Hospital, Outram Road, S169608, Republic of Singapore.Singapore General Hospital, Outram Road, S169608, Republic of Singapore.

Pub Type(s)

Journal Article

Language

eng

PubMed ID

28963154

Citation

Lim, J B T., et al. "Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty for Failed High Tibial Osteotomy and Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty Have Similar Patient-reported Outcome Measures in a Two-year Follow-up Study." The Bone & Joint Journal, vol. 99-B, no. 10, 2017, pp. 1329-1334.
Lim JBT, Chong HC, Pang HN, et al. Revision total knee arthroplasty for failed high tibial osteotomy and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty have similar patient-reported outcome measures in a two-year follow-up study. Bone Joint J. 2017;99-B(10):1329-1334.
Lim, J. B. T., Chong, H. C., Pang, H. N., Tay, K. J. D., Chia, S. L., Lo, N. N., & Yeo, S. J. (2017). Revision total knee arthroplasty for failed high tibial osteotomy and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty have similar patient-reported outcome measures in a two-year follow-up study. The Bone & Joint Journal, 99-B(10), pp. 1329-1334. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.99B10.BJJ-2017-0034.R1.
Lim JBT, et al. Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty for Failed High Tibial Osteotomy and Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty Have Similar Patient-reported Outcome Measures in a Two-year Follow-up Study. Bone Joint J. 2017;99-B(10):1329-1334. PubMed PMID: 28963154.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Revision total knee arthroplasty for failed high tibial osteotomy and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty have similar patient-reported outcome measures in a two-year follow-up study. AU - Lim,J B T, AU - Chong,H C, AU - Pang,H N, AU - Tay,K J D, AU - Chia,S L, AU - Lo,N N, AU - Yeo,S J, PY - 2017/01/08/received PY - 2017/05/19/accepted PY - 2017/10/1/entrez PY - 2017/10/1/pubmed PY - 2017/10/13/medline KW - High tibial osteotomy KW - Management KW - Outcomes KW - Revision total knee arthroplasty KW - Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty SP - 1329 EP - 1334 JF - The bone & joint journal JO - Bone Joint J VL - 99-B IS - 10 N2 - AIMS: Little is known about the relative outcomes of revision of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) and high tibial osteotomy (HTO) to total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The aim of this study is to compare the outcomes of revision surgery for the two procedures in terms of complications, re-revision and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) at a minimum of two years follow-up. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study was a retrospective review of data from an institutional arthroplasty registry for cases performed between 2001 and 2014. A total of 292 patients were identified, of which 217 had a revision of HTO to TKA, and 75 had revision of UKA to TKA. While mean follow-up was longer for the HTO group compared with the UKA group, patient demographics (age, body mass index and Charlson co-morbidity index) and PROMs (Short Form-36, Oxford Knee Score, Knee Society Score, both objective and functional) were similar in the two groups prior to revision surgery. Outcomes included the rate of complications and re-operation, PROMS and patient-reported satisfaction at six months and two years post-operatively. We also compared the duration of surgery and the need for revision implants in the two groups. RESULTS: At two-year follow-up, both groups of patients had made significant improvement in terms of PROMs compared with pre-operative scores. PROMs and satisfaction rates were similar in the two groups. Complications requiring re-operation were significantly more frequent in the HTO group whilst more revision implants were used in the UKA group, resulting in a longer operative duration. CONCLUSION: Revision of HTO and UKA achieve similar post-operative PROMs and satisfaction. Revision of UKA more frequently requires revision components with increased operation duration but fewer complications requiring re-operation compared with revision of HTO. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:1329-34. SN - 2049-4408 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/28963154/Revision_total_knee_arthroplasty_for_failed_high_tibial_osteotomy_and_unicompartmental_knee_arthroplasty_have_similar_patient_reported_outcome_measures_in_a_two_year_follow_up_study_ L2 - https://online.boneandjoint.org.uk/doi/full/10.1302/0301-620X.99B10.BJJ-2017-0034.R1?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub=pubmed DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -