Incidence and survival of multiply revised knee arthroplasties in Denmark 1998–2021: a nationwide register-based study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2340/17453674.2024.41257Keywords:
Arthroplasty, Implant survival, Register, Revision surgeryAbstract
Purpose: The primary aim of our study was to identify the absolute incidence and implant survival of multiply revised knee arthroplasties based on nationwide register data. The secondary aim was to determine the change in the absolute incidence and implant survival of multiply revised knee arthroplasties
Methods: We performed a retrospective observational study of primary knee arthroplasties using several nationwide Danish registers. All primary knee arthroplasties performed in Denmark from 1998 to 2021 were identified. From these primary arthroplasties, revision procedures were identified. Kaplan–Meier plots were used in survival analysis to estimate the likelihood of implant survival.
Results: 161,384 primary knee arthroplasties and their revisions performed between 1998 and 2021 were identified; of 13,786 (8.5%) revisions there were 10,638 1st revisions, 2,148 2nd revisions, 624 3rd revisions, 223 4th revisions, and 153 procedures that had been revised more than 4 times. The 10-year revision-free survival of primary arthroplasties was 92.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] 92.2–92.5). First-time revisions had a 10-year revision-free survival of 75.9% (CI 74.9–76.9). The 10-year survival of second- and third-time revisions was 65.1% (CI 62.6–67.6) and 57.8% (CI 53.4–62.5), respectively. The 10-year implant survival probabilities of primary knee arthroplasties were 91.4% in 1998–2009 and 93.3% in 2010–2021 (difference 2.2%). The 10-year implant survival probabilities of 1st revisions were 77% in 1998–2009 and 75% in 2010–2021 (difference –2.4%).
Conclusion: We found that 0.3% of all primary knee arthroplasties resulted in 3 or more revisions. The implant survival decreased for each consecutive revision, with almost half of the 3rd revisions being re-revised within 10 years. The 10-survival of the primary implant was higher in 2010–2021, and the 10-year survival of the 1st revision was higher in 1998–2009.
Downloads
References
Price A J, Alvand A, Troelsen A, Katz J N, Hooper G, Gray A, et al. Knee replacement. Lancet 2018; 392: 1672-82. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(18)32344-4.
Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, Mowat F, Halpern M. Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007; 89: 780-5. doi: 10.2106/jbjs.F.00222.
Patel A, Pavlou G, Mújica-Mota R E, Toms A D. The epidemiology of revision total knee and hip arthroplasty in England and Wales: a comparative analysis with projections for the United States. A study using the National Joint Registry dataset. Bone Joint J 2015; 97-b: 1076-81. doi: 10.1302/0301-620x.97b8.35170.
Kallala R F, Vanhegan I S, Ibrahim S, Sarmah S, Haddad F S. Financial analysis of revision knee surgery based on NHS tariffs and hospital costs: does it pay to provide a revision service? Bone Joint J 2015; 97-b: 197-201. doi: 10.1302/0301-620x.97b2.33707.
Deere K, Whitehouse M R, Kunutsor S K, Sayers A, Price A J, Mason J, et al. How long do revised and multiply revised knee replacements last? An analysis of the National Joint Registry. Lancet Rheumatol 2021; 3: e438-e446. doi: 10.1016/s2665-9913(21)00079-5.
Belt M, Hannink G, Smolders J, Spekenbrink-Spooren A, Schreurs B W, Smulders K. Reasons for revision are associated with rerevised total knee arthroplasties: an analysis of 8,978 index revisions in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop 2021; 92: 597-601. doi: 10.1080/17453674.2021.1925036.
Arndt K B, Schrøder H M, Troelsen A, Lindberg-Larsen M. Prosthesis survival after revision knee arthroplasty for “pain without loosening” versus “aseptic loosening”: a Danish nationwide study. Acta Orthop 2022; 93: 103-10. doi: 10.1080/17453674.2021.1999069.
Ong K L, Lau E, Suggs J, Kurtz S M, Manley M T. Risk of subsequent revision after primary and revision total joint arthroplasty. Clin Ortho Relat Res 2010; 468: 3070-6. doi: 10.1007/s11999-010-1399-0.
Cuschieri S. The STROBE guidelines. Saudi J Anaesth 2019; 13: S31-s34. doi: 10.4103/sja.SJA_543_18.
Schmidt M, Schmidt S A, Sandegaard J L, Ehrenstein V, Pedersen L, Sørensen H T. The Danish National Patient Registry: a review of content, data quality, and research potential. Clin Epidemiol 2015; 7: 449-90. doi: 10.2147/clep.S91125.
Schmidt M, Schmidt S A J, Adelborg K, Sundbøll J, Laugesen K, Ehrenstein V, et al. The Danish health care system and epidemiological research: from health care contacts to database records. Clin Epidemiol 2019; 11: 563-91. doi: 10.2147/clep.S179083.
Pedersen A B, Mehnert F, Odgaard A, Schrøder H M. Existing data sources for clinical epidemiology: the Danish Knee Arthroplasty Register. Clin Epidemiol 2012; 4: 125-35. doi: 10.2147/clep.S30050.
DKR. The Danish Knee Arthroplasty Register. Annual Report; 2021. Available from: http://danskhoftealloplastikregister.dk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/DHR-aarsrapport-2021_Udgivet-2022_offentliggjort-version-1.pdf
Klasan A, Magill P, Frampton C, Zhu M, Young S W. Factors predicting repeat revision and outcome after aseptic revision total knee arthroplasty: results from the New Zealand Joint Registry. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2021; 29: 579-85. doi: 10.1007/s00167-020-05985-8.
de Steiger R N, Lewis P L, Harris I, Lorimer M F, Graves S E. What is the outcome of the first revision procedure of primary THA for osteoarthritis? A study from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2022; 480: 1952-70. doi: 10.1097/corr.0000000000002339.
Christensen R, Ranstam J, Overgaard S, Wagner P. Guidelines for a structured manuscript: statistical methods and reporting in biomedical research journals. Acta Orthop 2023; 94: 243-9. doi: 10.2340/17453674.2023.11656.
Christensen R, Bours M J L, Nielsen S M. Effect modifiers and statistical tests for interaction in randomized trials. J Clin Epidemiol 2021; 134: 174-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.03.009.
National Joint Registry (NJR). NJR data entry user guide. Available from: https://www.njrcentre.org.uk/about-the-njr/.
Leta T H, Lygre S H L, Schrama J C, Hallan G, Gjertsen J E, Dale H, et al. Outcome of revision surgery for infection after total knee arthroplasty: results of 3 surgical strategies. JBJS Rev 2019; 7: e4. doi: 10.2106/jbjs.Rvw.18.00084.
Gottfriedsen T B, Schrøder H M, Odgaard A. Knee arthrodesis after failure of knee arthroplasty: a nationwide register-based study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2016; 98: 1370-7. doi: 10.2106/jbjs.15.01363.
Gottfriedsen T B, Schrøder H M, Odgaard A. Transfemoral amputation after failure of knee arthroplasty: a nationwide register-based study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2016; 98: 1962-9. doi: 10.2106/jbjs.15.01362.
Additional Files
Published
How to Cite
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Julius T Hald, Anders B El-Galaly, Michael M Petersen, Martin Lindberg-Larsen, Robin Christensen, Anders Odgaard
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
