Have the frequency of and reasons for revision total knee arthroplasty changed since 2000? Comparison of two cohorts from the same hospital: 255 cases (2013-2016) and 68 cases (1991-1998)

Introduction: The number of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) revisions is expected to increase 601% in the United States between 2005 and 2030. This type of information is not available in France, and the last national study on this topic was done in 2000. This led us to perform a comparative study to determine if 1) the frequency of TKA revisions has increased and 2) the reasons for reoperation have changed relative to data gathered in 2000 at a single hospital in France.

Hypothesis: The frequency of TKA revision has increased between the two studies, performed 15 years apart.

Material and methods: In this retrospective observational single-center study (January 2013 to December 2016), all patients with a TKA who were reoperated with or without any component change were included. This cohort was compared to our historical cohort defined in 2000 of 68 TKA reoperations between January 1991 and January 1998. The reasons for revision were determined by consulting computerized patient records to find the disease history, clinical examinations, imaging findings, laboratory tests and the surgery report. Cases due to periprosthetic fractures, infection and skin-related complications were excluded in order to be consistent with the indications of the historical cohort.

Results: Between 2013 and 2016, 349 TKA revisions were performed, and 255 met the inclusion criteria. Note that the historical cohort had 68 cases. The mean time elapsed between the primary TKA and revision procedure was 5.3 years [34 days to 31 years]. Eight reasons for reoperation were identified. Aseptic loosening (85 cases (33.3%)), stiffness (70 cases (27.5%)), tibiofemoral laxity (39 cases (15.3%)) and patellar complications (34 cases (13.3%)) were the four most common reasons for reoperation. The frequency has changed over time: relative to 2000, the annual frequency increased by a factor of 6.5. The reasons have also changed over time: there was an increase in revisions for aseptic loosening (33.3% vs. 23.5%), stiffness (27.5% vs. 20.6%) and knee joint laxity (15.3% vs. 10.3%). Conversely, there was a reduction in revisions for patellar complications (13.3% vs. 26.5%), unexplained pain (0.4% vs. 8.8%) and patellar clunk syndrome (1.2% vs. 4.4%).

Discussion: The number of TKA revisions has increased by a factor of 6.5, with aseptic loosening still being the most common reason. The number of revisions performed for stiffness and knee joint laxity have increased. Fewer revisions are being done for unexplained pain because surgeons are now better able to determine the cause of TKA-related pain. There were fewer patella-related complications because of technical progress. The data generated from our single-center study are consistent with current published data.

Level of evidence: II, comparative study.