Author(s): Dudley TE, Gioe TJ, Sinner P, Mehle S, Dudley TE, Gioe TJ, Sinner P, Mehle S, Dudley TE, Gioe TJ, Sinner P, Mehle S, Dudley TE, Gioe TJ, Sinner P, Mehle S
Abstract Share this page
Abstract Perceptions of the difficulty and outcome of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty revision (rev-UKA) vary. We analyzed differences in the complexity, cost, and survival of rev-UKAs compared with revision TKAs (rev-TKA). One hundred eighty knee arthroplasty revisions (68 rev-UKAs/112 rev-TKAs), defined as a minimum of tibial or femoral component revision, were identified from a community joint registry of 7587 knee implants performed between 1991 and 2005. Four of 68 rev-UKAs (5.9\%) were revised a second time, whereas seven of 112 rev-TKAs (6.3\%) were rerevised. Rev-TKA was predictably more complex than rev-UKA based on the proxies of operative time, use of modular augmentation and stems, and polyethylene liner thickness. Thirty-nine of 68 rev-UKAs (57\%) had no form of augmentation and were revised as primary TKAs. There were more rev-TKAs than rev-UKAs with an implant cost greater than $5200 (42\% versus 12\%) and hospital charges greater than $33,000 (48\% versus 25\%). We found no difference in survival between the groups. Although rev-UKAs had less surgical complexity and bone loss at the time of revision compared with rev-TKAs, we were unable to show improved survival of rev-UKAs compared with rev-TKAs. Rev-UKAs were associated with lower implant costs and hospital charges compared with rev-TKAs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, prognostic study.
This article was published in Clin Orthop Relat Res
and referenced in Journal of Arthritis