Septic Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty Research Articles

Aseptic versus septic revision total knee arthroplasty: Patient satisfaction, outcome and quality of life improvement

We prospectively compared the clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction rates of aseptic ( n = 30) versus septic revision TKA ( n = 15) at a mean follow-up of 40 months. We hypothesized that the clinical results of septic revision TKA would be inferior to aseptic revision TKA. The indication for revision in aseptic group was stiffness in 11 patients, aseptic loosening in 13, patellar loosening or maltracking in 6 patients. Patients operated for infection had better post-operative Knee Society Scores (KSS), Function Scores and SF-36 Mental Scores than aseptic group but there were no significant differences in the satisfaction rates. Patients operated for infection had more improvement in their KSS ( p = 0.004) and Function Scores ( p = 0.02) than patients revised for stiffness. Moreover, patients operated on for patellar problems had higher satisfaction rates than patients revised for stiffness ( p = 0.01) or aseptic loosening ( p = 0.01). Thus, patients undergoing septic revision TKA had better outcomes compared to those with aseptic revision TKA. However, in the aseptic group, revision TKA for stiffness was associated with the poorest outcomes. The indication for aseptic revision is an important variable when discussing treatment and outcome with patients.

Résultats des changements de prothèse de genou pour infection: À propos de 107 cas

purpose of the study The purpose of this study was to assess the results of reimplantations of total knee arthroplasties complicated by infection. Outcome was assessed in terms of eradicated infection and function. Material and methods This retrospective multicentric study included 107 cases of infected total knee arthroplasties treated by changing the implants. Seventy-seven patients had a two-stage revision and thirty had a one-stage procedure. Patients were reviewed with a minimal 2-year and an average 52-month follow-up. Results Revision arthroplasty (one- or two-stage) eradicated infection in two out of three patients. With a two-year follow-up, revision arthroplasty was successful in 77% of patients without any sepsis risk factor, in 65% of patients with one risk factor and in 33% of patients with at least two risk factors. After reimplantation for total knee arthroplasty infection, overall function outcome was good (KS knee score: 74.8 after two-stage revision and 75.5 after one-stage revision, NS). After two-stage procedures, the knee outcome was excellent in one-third of patients, good in another third and fair or poor in the final third. After one-stage reimplantation, 40% of the knees had an excellent outcome, 30% a good outcome and 30% a fair or poor outcome. Regarding functional outcome, overall results were fair (KS function score 62.5 for one-stage and two-stage revisions). Functional outcome was fair or poor in 42% of patients with a two-stage procedure and in 55% of patients with a one-stage revision (NS). Discussion Our study was unable to disclose any difference between one-stage and two-stage revision for eradicating infection. Unfavorable systemic and local conditions decreased the rate of success after revision total knee arthroplasty for infection. Length of infection before reimplantation, number of surgical procedures and bacterial virulence or resistance were not, in our series, predicting factors for failure of septic revision total knee arthroplasty. No difference was found for the clinical and functional results between one-stage and two-stage procedures. Functional outcome was fair or poor for half of the patients after septic revision total knee arthroplsty. The use of an external device between the two procedures for two-stage revision significantly decreased the functional outcome compared with the use of a spacer. Articulated spacers did not offered any advantage compared with a static spacer for functional outcome.

Clinical outcome and patient satisfaction in aseptic and septic revision total knee arthroplasty

This study compares clinical outcome and patient satisfaction in 33 aseptic and 15 septic revision total knee arthroplasties across a 30–130-month follow-up. Aseptic revisions included only knees in which the femoral, tibial and patellar components had been exchanged, and excluded knees in which only isolated patellar components had been revised or only the tibial insert exchanged. Septic revisions included only knees in which there had been successful revision for chronic infection without recurrence of infection for at least 2 years from the index revision. The evaluation included pain scores, knee scores, functional scores, SF-12 functional surveys and radiographs of the knee. The results for the aseptic group were excellent in 26 (78.8%), good in 3 (9.0%), fair in 2 (6.1%) and poor in 2 (6.1%); those for the septic group were excellent in 5 (33.3%), good in 7 (46.7%), fair in 2 (13.3%) and poor in 1 (6.7%). The overall results of septic revision were less satisfactory than for aseptic revision. Aseptic revisions achieved significantly better knee scores and ranges of motion than septic revisions, but their pain and functional scores were similar. Despite the difference in knee scores, 85% of the patients from both groups were equally satisfied with the results of treatment. There was no discernible radiographic difference between the two groups, including radiolucency.