RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: We compared revision rates and reasons for revision for primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) performed for osteoarthritis with and without tibial stem extensions. METHODS: Data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry were used to compare all-cause revision, reason, and type of revision between primary TKA using stemmed tibial prostheses and non-stemmed prostheses. RESULTS: All-cause revision for TKA with stem extension was higher for the first 6 months (hazard ratio [HR] 1.47; 95% confidence interval [CI]1.19 to 1.82; P < .001); while after 1.5 years TKA with stem extension had a lower rate of revision (HR 0.84; 95% CI 0.73 to 0.97; P = .01). Stemmed components were more likely to be revised for infection between 3 months and 1.5 years after surgery (HR 1.39; 95% CI 1.05 to 1.83; P = .02). The revision rate for aseptic loosening was lower in the stemmed group beyond 2 years (HR = 0.45; 95% CI 0.31 to 0.63; P < .001). Insert-only revision was higher in the stemmed group at all times (HR = 1.42; 95% CI 1.21 to 1.66, P < .001). Isolated tibial component revision was lower in the stemmed group at all times (HR 0.47; 95% CI 0.29 to 0.74; P = .001). Aseptic loosening for tibial component-only revision was significantly lower in the stemmed group at all times (HR 0.23; 95% CI 0.11 to 0.50; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing primary stemmed TKA have lower rates of all-cause revision beyond 1.5 years and tibial component-only revision at all times. Further investigation is required to preoperatively select patients that benefit from augmentation with stems.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: We investigated if the use of augmented tibial fixation with stems in primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in obese patients was associated with a difference in reason for revision, type of revision, or overall revision rate. METHODS: Data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry compared reason for revision, rate, and type of revision between primary TKA using stemmed tibial prostheses to nonstemmed prostheses, stratified by body mass index (BMI) and obesity. The cumulative percent revision was obtained using the Kaplan-Meier method, and Cox proportional hazards models estimated hazard ratios (HRs) adjusted for age and sex with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). All tests were 2-tailed at 5% statistical significance (P < .05). There were 66,508 procedures available for analyses. RESULTS: Obese class 2 (BMI 35 to 39.99) had higher rates of revision in the stemmed group compared to the nonstemmed group (HR 1.44, 95% CI 1.00, 2.05, P = .047). There was no significant difference in revision rates between stemmed and nonstemmed tibial prostheses in any other BMI group. Primary TKA in obese patients (BMI ≥30) with a stem extension had a significantly higher rate of minor revisions compared to no stem extension (HR 1.31, 95% CI 1.03, 1.66, P = .025). There was no significant difference between stemmed and nonstemmed groups for major revision in obese patients and for minor or major revision in nonobese patients. CONCLUSION: Using a tibial stem during primary TKA in obese patients is not associated with a lower rate of revision.
