Modern full-component aseptic revision total knee arthroplasties have similar recoveries compared with primary total knee arthroplasty patients when applying an enhanced recovery anaesthetic and analgesic protocol

Abstract

Aims Enhanced perioperative protocols have significantly improved patient recovery following primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Little has been investigated the effectiveness of these protocols for revision TKA (RTKA). We report on a matched group of aseptic revision and primary TKA patients treated with an identical pain and rehabilitation programmes. Methods Overall, 40 aseptic full-component RTKA patients were matched (surgical date, age, sex, and body mass index (BMI)) to a group of primary cemented TKA patients. All RTKAs had new uncemented stemmed femoral and tibial components with metaphyseal sleeves. Both groups were treated with an identical postoperative pain protocol. Patients were followed for at least two years. Knee Society Scores (KSS) at six weeks and at final follow-up were recorded for both groups. Results There was no difference in mean length of stay between the primary TKA (1.2 days (0.83 to 2.08)) and RTKA patients (1.4 days (0.91 to 2.08). Mean oral morphine milligram (mg) equivalent dosing (MED) during the hospitalization was 42 mg/day for the primary TKA and 38 mg/day for the RTKA groups. There were two readmissions: gastrointestinal disturbance (RTKA) and urinary retention (primary TKA). There no were reoperations, wound problems, thromboembolic events or manipulations in either group. Mean overall KSS for the RTKA group was 87.3 (45 to 99) at six-week follow-up and 89.1 (52 to 100) at final follow-up (mean 3.9 years, (3.9 to 9.0)). Mean overall KSS for the primary group was 89.9 (71 to 100) at six-week follow-up and 93.42 (73 to 100) at final follow-up (mean 3.5 years (2.5 to 9.2)). Conclusion An identical pain and rehabilitation protocol used for primary TKA patients can enable certain full-component aseptic RTKA patients to have a similar early functional outcome. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(6 Supple A):96–100.