Download PDF
J Knee Surg 2023; 36(11): 1125-1131
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1749606
Original Article

Preoperative Activity Level an Indicator of Postoperative Functional Outcomes with a Contemporary Revision Total Knee System

Richard L. Auran 
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Arizona College of Medicine, Phoenix, Arizona
,
Samuel L. Ashby
2   Division of Orthopedics, Ascension Via Christi, Wichita, Kansas
,
Kirby D. Hitt
3   Division of Orthopaedics, Baylor Scott & White Roney Bone and Joint Institute, Temple, Texas
,
David J. Jacofsky
4   Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, The CORE Insitute, Phoenix, Arizona
› Author Affiliations Funding Stryker Orthopaedics provided funding for this multicentered study.
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

As the population requiring revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) grows, varying preoperative conditions may need to be considered when attempting to predict postoperative outcomes. Considering preoperative activity levels may help manage the expectations of patients. The purpose of this study was to analyze the outcomes of low- and high-activity subgroups of patients receiving a contemporary rTKA. One hundred and eighty-one rTKA patients enrolled in a prospective multicenter study were evaluated over a minimum follow-up of 2 years postoperatively. Patients were divided into two groups based on the preoperative activity level using the Lower Extremity Activity Scale. Patients scoring between 1 and 7 were classified as “Low Activity” (LA; N = 105) and patients scoring 8 to 18 were classified as “High Activity” (HA; N = 76). Clinical outcomes were evaluated, with an additional quality-of-life analysis completed utilizing SF-6D (6-dimension short form) scores obtained through a method described by Brazier et al and analyzed for effect size. There were no significant differences in age or body mass index between the groups. Postoperative improvement in both groups were similar in the Knee Society score (KSS), but the LA group showed larger increases in the KSS functional assessment at 6 months (16.2) and 2 years (34.8). There was a statistically significant effect (0.96, p = 0.0006) seen in the LA group at 1 year, in conjunction with a higher SF-6D outcome. The current study population displayed significant improvement in functional patient outcomes following rTKA regardless of preoperative activity level and function. Patients with lower preoperative activity levels demonstrated greater cumulative functional and quality-of-life improvements. This suggests that a lower preoperative activity level may be related to a poorly functioning knee and that rTKA has the potential to improve overall activity levels and function. Low preoperative function should not disqualify patients for rTKA.

Keywords

revision total knee arthroplasty - functional outcomes - activity levels


Publication History

Received: 03 September 2021

Accepted: 26 April 2022

Article published online:
11 July 2022

© 2022. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Kurtz S, Mowat F, Ong K, Chan N, Lau E, Halpern M. Prevalence of primary and revision total hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 1990 through 2002. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005; 87 (07) 1487-1497
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 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 (04) 780-785
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Lavernia C, Lee DJ, Hernandez VH. The increasing financial burden of knee revision surgery in the United States. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2006; 446 (446) 221-226
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Lombardi Jr AV, Berend KR, Adams JB. Why knee replacements fail in 2013: patient, surgeon, or implant?. Bone Joint J 2014; 96-B (11, Supple A): 101-104
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Thiele K, Perka C, Matziolis G, Mayr HO, Sostheim M, Hube R. Current failure mechanisms after knee arthroplasty have changed: polyethylene wear is less common in revision surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2015; 97 (09) 715-720
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Bugbee WD, Ammeen DJ, Engh GA. Does implant selection affect outcome of revision knee arthroplasty?. J Arthroplasty 2001; 16 (05) 581-585
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Labek G, Thaler M, Janda W, Agreiter M, Stöckl B. Revision rates after total joint replacement: cumulative results from worldwide joint register datasets. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2011; 93 (03) 293-297
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Liodakis E, Bergeron SG, Zukor DJ, Huk OL, Epure LM, Antoniou J. Perioperative complications and length of stay after revision total hip and knee arthroplasties: an analysis of the NSQIP database. J Arthroplasty 2015; 30 (11) 1868-1871
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Gonzalez Della Valle A, Chiu YL, Ma Y, Mazumdar M, Memtsoudis SG. The metabolic syndrome in patients undergoing knee and hip arthroplasty: trends and in-hospital outcomes in the United States. J Arthroplasty 2012; 27 (10) 1743-1749.e1
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Skolarus LE, Meurer WJ, Shanmugasundaram K, Adelman EE, Scott PA, Burke JF. Marked regional variation in acute stroke treatment among Medicare beneficiaries. Stroke 2015; 46 (07) 1890-1896
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Yu S, Garvin KL, Healy WL, Pellegrini Jr VDJ, Iorio R. Preventing hospital readmissions and limiting the complications associated with total joint arthroplasty. Instr Course Lect 2016; 65: 199-210
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Saleh KJ, Mulhall KJ, Bershadsky B. et al. Development and validation of a lower-extremity activity scale. Use for patients treated with revision total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005; 87 (09) 1985-1994
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Roos EM, Lohmander LS. The Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS): from joint injury to osteoarthritis. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2003; 1 (02) 64
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Noble PC, Scuderi GR, Brekke AC. et al. Development of a new Knee Society scoring system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2012; 470 (01) 20-32
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Baldini A, Anderson JA, Zampetti P, Pavlov H, Sculco TP. A new patellofemoral scoring system for total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2006; 452 (452) 150-154
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ 2002; 21 (02) 271-292
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Suarez J, Griffin W, Springer B, Fehring T, Mason JB, Odum S. Why do revision knee arthroplasties fail?. J Arthroplasty 2008; 23 (06, Suppl 1): 99-103
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar