Latest research confirms that surgeons do have a lower threshold for going ahead with revision surgery for patients with partial knee replacements compared to totals.
“A lower threshold for revision of aseptic unicompartmental vs total knee arthroplasty”
William B. Johnson, Jr., C. Anderson Engh, Jr., Nancy L. Parks, William G. Hamilton, P. Henry Ho, Kevin B. Fricka
The Bone and Joint Journal 2020; 102-B(6): 91-95
Research out of Alexandria, Virginia, USA has confirmed what many of us have suspected for a long time…
In this study of 619 cases of revision knee arthroplasty, those patients undergoing revision of a partial knee replacement had a significantly higher Oxford Knee Score than similar patients undergoing revision of total knee replacements… i.e. the partial knee replacement patients were being revised despite having less symptoms (i.e. with better knees) compared to the total knee replacement patients.
Revision knee replacement is easier when revising a partial knee replacement compared to a total; therefore, surgeons tend to have a lower threshold for going ahead with revision surgery in patients who are having issues with loosening/failure of a partial knee replacement, compared to patients suffering similarly bad issues with a total knee replacement. This is just one of the factors that helps explain why we tend to see a higher revision rate with partial knee replacements compared to totals. This does not, however, mean that partial knee replacements (when done for the right reasons in the right patient at the right time) are ‘worse’ than total knee replacements.
This study also showed that of the partial knee replacements that were revised, 36% were revised for aseptic loosening and 36% were revised for progression of osteoarthritis into the non-resurfaced compartment(s).
CLICK HERE to read the article
24 June 2020–