Direkt zum Inhalt

Walter, Nike ; Weber, Johannes ; Kerschbaum, Maximilian ; Lau, Edmund ; Kurtz, Steven M. ; Alt, Volker ; Rupp, Markus

Revision arthroplasty after unicompartimental knee arthroplasty

Walter, Nike , Weber, Johannes , Kerschbaum, Maximilian , Lau, Edmund, Kurtz, Steven M., Alt, Volker and Rupp, Markus (2021) Revision arthroplasty after unicompartimental knee arthroplasty. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research 16 (1), p. 666.

Date of publication of this fulltext: 26 Apr 2022 14:54
Article
DOI to cite this document: 10.5283/epub.52176


Abstract

Background Unicompartimental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is a promising and increasing application to treat unicompartimental knee osteoarthritis. However, revision arthroplasty numbers after UKA are unknown. Therefore, aim of this study was to determine the nationwide burden of revision after UKA by answering the following questions: (1) How did numbers of revision UKA procedures developed over the ...

Background Unicompartimental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is a promising and increasing application to treat unicompartimental knee osteoarthritis. However, revision arthroplasty numbers after UKA are unknown. Therefore, aim of this study was to determine the nationwide burden of revision after UKA by answering the following questions: (1) How did numbers of revision UKA procedures developed over the last decade as a function of age and gender? (2) How high is the percentage of revision UKA procedures due to infection? (3) Which therapy strategy was chosen for surgical treatment of aseptic revision UKA? Methods Revision arthroplasty rates as a function of age, gender, infection and type of prosthesis were quantified based on Operation and Procedure Classification System codes using revision knee arthroplasty data from 2008 to 2018, provided by the Federal Statistical Office of Germany (Destatis). Results Over the last decade, revision UKA increased by 46.3% up to 3105 procedures in 2018. A trend towards higher numbers in younger patients was observed. Septic interventions constituted 5.7% of all revisions, whereby total procedures increased by 67.1% from 2008 through 2018. The main treatment strategy was an exchange to a bicondylar surface replacement prosthesis, which was done in 63.70% of all cases, followed by exchange to a femoral and tibial shaft-anchored (16.2% of all revisions). Conclusion The increasing number of revision arthroplasty after UKA in Germany, especially in younger patients and due to infection, underlines the need for future efforts to improve treatment strategies beyond UKA to delay primary arthroplasty and avoid periprosthetic joint infection.



Involved Institutions


Details

Item typeArticle
Journal or Publication TitleJournal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research
Publisher:BMC
Place of Publication:LONDON
Volume:16
Number of Issue or Book Chapter:1
Page Range:p. 666
Date12 November 2021
InstitutionsMedicine > Lehrstuhl für Unfallchirurgie
Identification Number
ValueType
10.1186/s13018-021-02767-xDOI
KeywordsUNITED-STATES; REPLACEMENT; RATES; Revision knee arthroplasty; PJI; Unicondylar knee arthroplasty; Exchange arthroplasty; Unicondylar prosthesis
Dewey Decimal Classification600 Technology > 610 Medical sciences Medicine
StatusPublished
RefereedYes, this version has been refereed
Created at the University of RegensburgYes
URN of the UB Regensburgurn:nbn:de:bvb:355-epub-521760
Item ID52176

Export bibliographical data

Owner only: item control page

nach oben