Patient‐reported outcomes and satisfaction after revisions of medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasties for unexplained pain vs aseptic loosening

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

Publisher

Wiley

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.

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3