Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Hinge prostheses in the revision of unicompartmental knee replacement: a descriptive analysis of data from the national joint registry for England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Appleyard, Tom; Avery, Peter; Baker, Paul; Clement, Nick D; Mason, James; Deehan, David J.
Afiliación
  • Appleyard T; Newcastle Upon Tyne NHS Trust, Freeman Hospital, Freeman Road, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK. t.appleyard@outlook.com.
  • Avery P; School of Medicine, Keele University, Newcastle-under-Lyme, UK. t.appleyard@outlook.com.
  • Baker P; School of Mathematics and Statistics, Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK.
  • Clement ND; South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Middlesbrough, UK.
  • Mason J; University of York, York, UK.
  • Deehan DJ; Teesside University, Middlesbrough, UK.
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg ; 144(1): 23-30, 2024 Jan.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37561165
ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION:

Unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) is an effective surgical strategy in patients with isolated medial or lateral compartment osteoarthritis. Study aims were to (1) describe the epidemiology of patients undergoing revision of UKR to a hinge knee replacement (HKR); (2) identify factors influencing time to revision; (3) evaluate HKR survival. MATERIALS AND

METHODS:

An analysis of National Joint Registry data was undertaken, exploring revision of UKR to HKR between 2007 and April 2021. Descriptive analysis of eligible patients and Cox Regression to identify key determinants of time to revision were performed. Failure of HKR post-revision was assessed using survival analysis.

RESULTS:

111 patients underwent revision of UKR to HKR. Median age at revision was 70 years and most common indications were instability (n = 42) and infection (n = 22). The most common implant was a rotating HKR. Significant independent factors associated with earlier revision were periprosthetic fracture (p = 0.03) and malalignment (p = 0.03). Progressive osteoarthritis (p = 0.01) and higher ASA grades (3 p = 0.01, 4 p < 0.01) delayed time to revision; patient sex and age were not significant factors. Ten patients required subsequent re-revision; median age at re-revision was 61 years. HKR revised from UKR had an 89.3% revision-free risk at 5 years. Male sex (p < 0.01) and younger age (p < 0.01) were associated with re-revision.

CONCLUSIONS:

Factors associated with time to revision may be used to counsel patients prior to UKR. The survivorship of the HKR of 89.3% at 5 years is concerning and careful consideration should be given when using this level of constraint when revising UKR in younger or male patients.
Asunto(s)
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Bases de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Artroplastia de Reemplazo de Rodilla / Osteoartritis de la Rodilla / Prótesis de la Rodilla Tipo de estudio: Prognostic_studies Límite: Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged País/Región como asunto: Europa Idioma: En Revista: Arch Orthop Trauma Surg Año: 2024 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Reino Unido

Texto completo: 1 Bases de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Artroplastia de Reemplazo de Rodilla / Osteoartritis de la Rodilla / Prótesis de la Rodilla Tipo de estudio: Prognostic_studies Límite: Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged País/Región como asunto: Europa Idioma: En Revista: Arch Orthop Trauma Surg Año: 2024 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Reino Unido