ISAKOS: 2023 Congress in Boston, MA USA

2023 ISAKOS Biennial Congress Paper

 

Comparison of Revision ‘Thresholds’ Using Patient Reported Outcomes Following Total and Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty

Mei Lin Tay, PhD, Auckland NEW ZEALAND
Simon W. Young, MD, FRACS, Auckland NEW ZEALAND
Paul Monk, DPhil (Oxon), FRCS, Auckland, Westmere NEW ZEALAND
Gary J. Hooper, MD, FRACS, Christchurch NEW ZEALAND

University of Auckland, Auckland, NEW ZEALAND

FDA Status Cleared

Summary

A lower revision threshold was found with UKA when compared with a matched TKA cohort.

Abstract

COMPARISON OF REVISION ‘THRESHOLDS’ USING PATIENT REPORTED OUTCOMES FOLLOWING TOTAL AND UNICOMPARTMENTAL KNEE ARTHROPLASTY
M.L. Tay, A.P. Monk, C.M. Frampton, G.J. Hooper, S.W. Young
University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
North Shore Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand
Auckland City Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand
University of Otago, Christchurch, New Zealand
Email: m.tay@auckland.ac.nz
Source of the study: University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand and University of Otago, Christchurch, New Zealand
Aims
Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) are predictors of knee arthroplasty revision. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is effective for patients with the correct indications, however has higher revision rates than total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Different revision thresholds for the procedures have been postulated. Our aims were to investigate: 1) if PROMs could predict knee arthroplasty revision within two years of the score at six months, five years and ten years follow-up, and 2) if revision ‘thresholds’ differed between TKA and UKA.
Patients and Methods
All TKAs and UKAs captured by the New Zealand Joint Registry between 1999 and 2019 with at least one OKS response at six months (TKA n=27,708, UKA n=8,415), five years (TKA n=11,519, UKA n=3,365) or ten years (TKA n=6,311, UKA n=1,744) were included. were propensity-score matched 2:1 with UKAs for comparison of revision thresholds.

Results

Logistic regression indicated that for every one-unit decrease in OKS, the odds of TKA and UKA revision decreased by 10% and 11% at six months, 10% and 12% at five years and 9% and 5% at ten years. Fewer TKA patients with ‘poor’ outcomes (=25) subsequently underwent revision compared with UKA at six months (5.1% vs. 19.6%, p<0.001), five years (4.3% vs. 12.5%, p<0.001) and ten years (6.4%vs. 15.0%, p=0.02). Compared with TKA, UKA patients were 2.5 times more likely to undergo revision for ‘unknown’ reasons, bearing dislocations and disease progression.

Conclusions

The OKS is a strong predictor of subsequent knee arthroplasty revision within two years of the score from early to late term. A lower revision threshold was found with UKA when compared with a matched TKA cohort. Higher revision rates of UKA are associated with both lower clinical thresholds for revision and additional modes of UKA failure.