Patient‐reported outcomes and satisfaction after revisions of medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasties for unexplained pain vs aseptic loosening
-
Published:2023-07-27
Issue:11
Volume:31
Page:4766-4772
-
ISSN:0942-2056
-
Container-title:Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Knee surg. sports traumatol. arthrosc.
Author:
Arndt Kristine Bollerup12ORCID,
Schrøder Henrik Morville34,
Troelsen Anders5,
Lindberg‐Larsen Martin12
Affiliation:
1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology Odense University Hospital Odense Denmark
2. Department of Clinical Research University of Southern Denmark J. B. Winsløws Vej 4 5000 Odense Denmark
3. Department of Regional Health Research University of Southern Denmark Odense Denmark
4. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery Naestved Hospital. Naestved Ringstedgade 61 4700 Næstved Denmark
5. Departmentof Orthopaedic Surgery Copenhagen University Hospital Kettegård Alle 30 2650 Hvidovre Denmark
Abstract
AbstractPurposeDoes patients revised for unexplained pain after mUKA present the same PROM and satisfaction scores 1–3 years after revision as patients revised for aseptic loosening?”.Methods104 patients undergoing revision of mUKA's for the indications unexplained pain and aseptic loosening were included in the period January 1, 2018 to December 31, 2020.from the Danish Knee Arthroplasty Register. 52 patients were revised for unexplained pain and 52 for aseptic loosening. Patient demographics did not differ between the two groups. PROMs [Oxford Knee Score (OKS), EQ‐5D‐5L, Forgotten Joint Score (FJS)] and questions about satisfaction with the surgery were sent to digitally secured mailboxes. Pearson’s Chi‐square test and Wilcoxon Rank Sum test were used to test for statistical differences between groups.ResultsThe median OKS 1–3 years after revision was 26 (IQR 22) for unexplained pain vs 34 (IQR 12) for aseptic loosening, p = 0.033. The median EQ‐5D‐5L Index after revision was 0.7 (IQR 0.6) for unexplained vs 0.8 (IQR 0.1) for aseptic loosening, p = 0.014. The median FJS after revision was 48 (IQR 10) for unexplained pain vs 52 (IQR 14) for aseptic loosening, p = 0.1. The mean satisfaction with the surgery on a 0–100 scale (100 = not satisfied; 0 = very satisfied) was 55 (IQR 60) for unexplained pain vs 50 (IQR 67) for aseptic loosening, p = 0.087, and patients revised for unexplained pain were less likely to find their knee problem importantly improved (p = 0.032).ConclusionPatients undergoing revision of mUKAs for unexplained pain presented poor postoperative PROM scores, and PROM scores were worse compared to those of patients revised for aseptic loosening. Patients revised for unexplained pain were less likely to find their knee problem importantly improved. This study support the evidence against revisions for unexplained pain.Level of evidenceLevel III.
Funder
Gigtforeningen
Odense Universitetshospital
Syddansk Universitet
Region of Southern Denmark
the Research Fund of Region Zeeland and Region of Southern Denmark
Odense University Hospital
Subject
Orthopedics and Sports Medicine,Surgery
Reference29 articles.
1. Revision for Unexplained Pain Following Unicompartmental and Total Knee Replacement
2. The “Forgotten Joint” as the Ultimate Goal in Joint Arthroplasty
3. DKR. The Danish Knee Arthroplasty Register Annual Report 2021. 2021; 186.https://www.sundhed.dk/sundhedsfaglig/kvalitet/kliniske‐kvalitetsdatabaser/planlagt‐kirugi/knaealloplastikregister/. Accessed 16/8 2022.