Abstract

BackgroundPatellofemoral arthroplasty (PFA) is an alternative to total knee arthroplasty (TKA) for the treatment of patellofemoral arthritis. Although PFA may preserve native kinematics and accelerate recovery, it has been associated with higher revision rates. The purpose of this study is to compare complication rates and costs between PFA and TKA. MethodsUsing the PearlDiver database, 6,179 patients with isolated patellofemoral arthritis treated with PFA or TKA from 2010-2015 were retrospectively reviewed with 5-year follow up. PFA and TKA patients were matched by age, sex, and Elixhauser Comorbidity Index via a 1:1 stepwise algorithm. Five-year costs and complications were compared between matched cohorts. The lifetime costs of PFA and TKA were evaluated with Markov decision modeling. ResultsCompared to TKA, PFA was associated with fewer Emergency Department (ED) visits (6.1% vs 3.9%, p = 0.004) but a higher 5-year revision rate (9.9% vs 4.2%, p < 0.001). After multivariate regression, PFA was independently more likely to require revision (odds ratio 2.60, 95% confidence interval 1.32–4.71, p = 0.003). PFA was associated with lower total healthcare costs at every time point between 3 months ($18,014 vs $26,473, p < 0.001) and 5 years ($20,837 vs $27,942, p < 0.001). On average, the lifetime cost of PFA per patient was $5,235 less than for TKA ($26,343 vs $31,578). ConclusionsPFA is a less expensive alternative to TKA with a similar risk of medical complications but is associated with a significantly higher 5-year revision rate. Future studies should examine the reasons for PFA failure and methods to mitigate this risk.

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.