Clinical Outcomes and Infection Rates Following Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty: Aseptic Failure versus Septic Failure.

Abstract

It is controversial whether revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) due to septic failure shows inferior clinical outcomes compared with TKA due to aseptic failure. Moreover, few studies have compared the infection rates after revision TKA between aseptic and septic failure. We aimed to compare the clinical outcomes and infection rates after aseptic and septic revision TKA. Between April 2006 and May 2019, 68 and 26 patients underwent revision TKA due to aseptic failure (aseptic group) and septic failure (septic group), respectively. The postoperative range of motion (ROM), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis index, Knee Society Knee Score (KSKS), Knee Society Function Score (KSFS), and infection rates were compared between the two groups. The mean follow-up durations in the aseptic and septic groups were 44.4 and 54.8 months, respectively. The septic group showed inferior postoperative ROM (124.1° and 109.4°, p = 0.004), KSKS (88.9 and 78.8, p = 0.001), and KSFS (72.8 and 59.0, p = 0.001). Three patients of aseptic group had infection. Three patients of septic group had recurred infection (same pathogen with the first infection) and 1 patient had a new infection (different pathogen). The septic group showed slightly higher but not significantly different infection rates (4.4% and 15.4%, p = 0.089). Revision TKA with septic failure showed inferior postoperative clinical outcomes compared with aseptic revision surgery. A slightly higher infection rate was observed in the septic group but it was not significantly different.