Dataset Information

No difference in the use of revision components and rerevision rate in conversion to total knee replacement following Oxford Partial Knee Microplasty Instrumentation: a registry study of 529 conversions.

ABSTRACT:

Background and purpose

Microplasty Instrumentation was introduced to improve Oxford Mobile Partial Knee placement and preserve tibial bone in partial knee replacement (PKR). This might therefore reduce revision complexity. We aimed to assess the difference in use of revision total knee replacement (TKR) tibial components in failed Microplasty versus non-Microplasty instrumented PKRs.

Patients and methods

Data on 529 conversions to TKR (156 Microplasty instrumented and 373 non-Microplasty instrumented PKRs) from the Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI) between 2007 and 2019 was used. The primary outcome was the difference in use of revision TKR tibial components during conversion to TKR, which was calculated with a univariable logistic regression analysis. The secondary outcomes were the 3-year re-revision rate and hazard ratios calculated with Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses.

Results

Revision TKR tibial components were used in 29% of the conversions to TKR after failed Microplasty instrumented PKRs and in 24% after failed non-Microplasty instrumented PKRs with an odds ratio of 1.3 (CI 0.86-2.0). The 3-year re-revision rates were 8.4% (CI 4.1-17) after conversion to TKR for failed Microplasty and 11% (CI 7.8-15) for failed non-Microplasty instrumented PKRs with a hazard ratio of 0.77 (CI 0.36-1.7).

Conclusion

There was no difference in use of revision tibial components for conversion to TKR or in re-revision rate after failed Microplasty versus non-Microplasty instrumented PKRs nor in the 3-year revision rate.

SUBMITTER: Van Langeveld SJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10388235 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

No difference in the use of revision components and rerevision rate in conversion to total knee replacement following Oxford Partial Knee Microplasty Instrumentation: a registry study of 529 conversions.

Van Langeveld Stephan J SJ Janssen Stein J SJ Koenraadt Koen L M KLM Van den Hout Joost A A M JAAM Van Steenbergen Liza N LN Van Geenen Rutger C I RCI

Acta orthopaedica 20230731

<h4>Background and purpose</h4>Microplasty Instrumentation was introduced to improve Oxford Mobile Partial Knee placement and preserve tibial bone in partial knee replacement (PKR). This might therefore reduce revision complexity. We aimed to assess the difference in use of revision total knee replacement (TKR) tibial components in failed Microplasty versus non-Microplasty instrumented PKRs.<h4>Patients and methods</h4>Data on 529 conversions to TKR (156 Microplasty instrumented and 373 non-Micr ...[more]

PMID: 37519250

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundHip and knee arthroplasties are common and successful procedures, however, success and durability are not guaranteed. The revision burden, defined as the ratio of implant revisions to the total number of arthroplasties in a specific period, is a measure of the steady state of arthroplasty success in a given registry. This study examines the hypothesis that revision burden would be similar among contemporary joint replacement registries and improving over time compared with historic controls.MethodsWe evaluated the national joint registries of 5 health systems (Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry [AOANJRR]; National Joint Registry of England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the Isle of Man; New Zealand Joint Registry [NZJR]; Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register [SHAR] and Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Register [SKAR]; and the American Joint Replacement Registry [AJRR]) for hip and knee revision burden over the past 4 years or since registry inception. Historic controls were obtained from previously published reports.ResultsThe 2014 hip revision burden varied from 9.7 percent (NJR) to 11.9 percent (NZJR), and the unweighted average was 10.4 percent. The 2011, 2012, and 2013 mean hip revision burden was 11.9, 11.9, and 11.4 percent. The 2014 knee revision burden varied from to 6.0 percent (NJR) to 8.1 percent (AJRR), and the unweighted average for the 5 registries studied was 7.0 percent. The 2011, 2012, and 2013 mean knee revision burden was 6.9, 7.0, and 7.0 percent. Historically, the observed hip revision burden was 15.8 percent and the knee revision burden 8.0 percent.ConclusionsRevision burden has gradually decreased for hip replacements and has remained relatively constant for knee replacements both for the last 4 years and compared to historic controls. Knee revision burden was lower than hip revision burden for each period examined. Revision burden is one measure that may be helpful in following the effect of changes in surgical technique and implant design over time in registry populations and may be a helpful way to compare overall results between registries.

Project description:PurposeFor patients with end-stage knee osteoarthritis, joint replacement is a widely used and successful operation to help improve quality-of-life when non-operative measures have failed. For a significant proportion of patients there is a choice between a partial or total knee replacement. Decision aids can help people weigh up the need for and benefits of treatment against possible risks and side-effects. This study explored patients' experiences of deciding to undergo knee replacement surgery to identify information priorities, to inform a knee replacement decision aid.MethodsFour focus groups were held with 31 patients who were candidates for both partial and total knee replacement surgery. Two focus groups included patients with no prior knee replacement surgery (pre-surgery); two with patients with one knee already replaced and who were candidates for a second surgery on their other knee (post-surgery). Data were analysed using Framework Analysis.ResultsParticipants described a process of arriving at 'readiness for surgery' a turning point where the need for treatment outweighed their concerns. Referral and personal factors influenced their decision-making and expectations of surgery in the hope to return to a former self. Those with previous knee surgery offered insights into whether their expectations were met. 'Information for decisions' details the practicality and the optimal timing for the delivery of a knee replacement decision aid. In particular, participants would have valued hearing about the experiences of other patients and seeing detailed pictures of both surgical options. Information priorities were identified to include in a decision aid for knee replacement surgery.ConclusionsPatients' experiences of surgical decision-making have much in common with the Necessity-Concerns Framework. Whilst originally developed to understand drug treatment decisions and adherence, it provides a useful lens to understand decision-making about surgery. The use of a decision aid could enhance decision-making on knee replacement surgery. Ultimately, patients' understanding of the risks and benefits of both surgical options could be improved and in turn, help informed decision-making. The knee replacement decision aid is perceived as a useful tool to be associated with other detailed information resources as recommended.

Dataset Information

No difference in the use of revision components and rerevision rate in conversion to total knee replacement following Oxford Partial Knee Microplasty Instrumentation: a registry study of 529 conversions.

Background and purpose

Patients and methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

No difference in the use of revision components and rerevision rate in conversion to total knee replacement following Oxford Partial Knee Microplasty Instrumentation: a registry study of 529 conversions.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets