Original Research

Two adequate views of the lower cervical vertebrae are necessary to confirm the 3-dimensional location of any hardware placed during cervical spine fusion. Visualizing the lower cervical vertebrae in 2 planes intraoperatively is often a challenge because the shoulders obstruct the lateral view.¹ Techniques have been described to improve lateral visualization, including gentle traction of the arms via wrist restraints or taping the shoulders down inferiorly.^2,3 These techniques have their inadequacies, including an association with peripheral nerve injury and brachial plexopathy.⁴ In patients with stout necks, these methods may still be insufficient to achieve adequate visualization of the lower cervical vertebrae.

Invasive techniques to improve visualization have also been described. In 1 study, exposure had to be extended cephalad to allow for manual counting of cervical vertebrae when the mid- to lower cervical vertebrae had to be identified in a morbidly obese patient.⁵ More invasive spine procedures are associated with higher rates of complications, increased blood loss, more soft-tissue trauma, and longer hospital stays.⁶ We present a view 30º oblique from horizontal and 30º cephalad from neutral as a variation of the lateral radiograph that improves visualization of the mid- to lower cervical vertebrae. The authors have obtained the patients’ informed written consent for print and electronic publication of these case reports.

Technique

We used either the Smith-Robinson or Cloward approach to the anterior spine. Both techniques use the avascular plane between the medially located esophagus and trachea and the lateral sternocleidomastoid and carotid sheath to approach the anterior cervical spine. Once adequate exposure was achieved, standard anteroposterior and lateral radiographs were obtained to confirm the correct vertebral level. Gentle caudal traction was applied to the patient’s wrist straps, and when visualization continued to be compromised, a view 30º oblique from horizontal and 30º cephalad from neutral was obtained (Figure 1).

Case Series

Case 1

A 54-year-old man with a body mass index (BMI) of 50 presented with neck and bilateral arm pain, with left greater than right radicular symptoms in the C6 and C7 distribution. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) showed disc herniations at C5-C6 and C6-C7 with spinal cord signal changes, and he underwent a C5-C6 and C6-C7 anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Initial localization was determined using a lateral radiograph and vertebral needle. During hardware placement, anteroposterior and lateral fluoroscopic radiographs confirmed adequate placement of the superior screw, but visualization of the inferior portion of the plate and inferior screw was challenging (Figure 2). Our oblique 30º–30º view provided better visualization of the plate and screws in the lower cervical vertebrae than lateral imaging, and allowed confirmation that the hardware was positioned correctly (Figure 3). It took 1 attempt to achieve adequate visualization with the 30º–30º view.

Postoperatively, the patient’s radiculopathy and motor weakness improved. Radiographs confirmed adequate hardware placement, and he was discharged on postoperative day 1 (Figure 4). Imaging at the patient’s 6-week follow-up confirmed adequate fusion from C5-C7, anatomically aligned facet joints, and no hardware failure. The patient’s Neck Disability Index was 31/50 preoperatively and 26/50 at this visit.

Case 2

A 51-year-old man with a BMI of 29 presented with a long-standing history of neck pain and bilateral arm pain left greater than right in the C6 and C7 dermomyotome. MRI showed a broad-based disc herniation with foraminal narrowing at C5-C6 and C6-C7, and the patient underwent a 2-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. This patient had pronounced neck musculature, and a deeper than normal incision was required.

Intraoperative lateral fluoroscopy was obtained to confirm the C5-C6 and C6-C7 level prior to discectomy. The musculature of the patient’s neck and shoulder made visualization of the C6-C7 disc space difficult on the lateral radiograph (Figure 5). One attempt was required to obtain the 30º–30º oblique view, which was used to ensure correct placement of the screws and plate (Figure 6).

Postoperatively, the patient’s pain had improved, and radiographs confirmed adequate hardware placement. He was discharged 1 day after surgery (Figure 7). Imaging at the patient’s 6-week follow-up confirmed adequate fusion from C5-C7, stable disc spaces, and anatomically aligned facet joints. His Neck Disability Index was 34/50 preoperatively and 32/50 at 2-week follow-up.

Discussion

The aim of this study was to describe an alternative to the lateral radiograph for imaging the cervical spine in patients with challenging anatomy or in procedures involving hardware placement at the lower cervical vertebrae. Techniques have been developed to assist with improved lateral visualization, including gentle traction of the arms via wrist restraints or taping the shoulders down inferiorly.2,3 However, visualization in 2 planes continues to be a challenge in a subset of patients. It is particularly difficult to obtain adequate lateral radiographs of the cervical spine in patients with stout necks.³ In patients with stout necks, there is more obstruction of the radiography path through the cervical spine. This leads to imaging that is unclear or may fail to show the mid- to lower cervical spine. The extent to which one should rely on the 30º–30º oblique technique for adequate visualization of the cervical spine depends on the anatomy of a particular patient. Historically, it is more challenging to obtain satisfactory lateral radiographs in patients with stout necks,³ and these patients have benefited the most from using the 30º–30º degree oblique view.

Lack of visualization can lead to aborted surgeries or, potentially, surgery at the wrong level.³ A 2008 American Academy of Neurological Surgeons survey indicated that 50% of spine surgeons had performed a wrong-level surgery at least once in their career, and the cervical spine accounted for 21% of all incorrect-level spine surgeries.⁷ Intraoperative factors reported during cases of wrong-level spinal surgeries included misinterpretation of intraoperative imaging, no intraoperative imaging, and unusual anatomy or physical characteristics.⁸ Such complications can lead to revision surgery and other significant morbidities for the patient.

In most patients, fluoroscopy allows confirmation of the correct level before disc incision.³ However, operating at a lower cervical level in a patient with a short neck or prominent shoulders poses a significant problem.³ A case report from Singh and colleagues⁹ described a modified intraoperative fluoroscopic view for spinal level localization at cervicothoracic levels. Their method focuses on identifying the bony lamina and using them as landmarks to count spinal levels, whereas our 30º–30º oblique image is useful for confirmation of adequate hardware placement during anterior cervical spinal fusions. Often, the initial localization of cervical vertebral levels can be achieved with a standard lateral radiograph. We recognized the utility of the 30º–30º oblique view when we were attempting to visualize the inferior aspect of the plate and inferior screw placement.

In patients with stout necks, a lateral radiograph may show only visualization down to C4 or C5.³ Even with applying traction to the arms or taping the shoulders down, it can be impossible to visualize C6, C7, or T1 because the shoulder bones and muscles obstruct the image.³ Using a 30º–30º oblique view, we were able to obtain adequate visualization and assess the accurate placement of hardware.

Conclusion

A 30º oblique view from horizontal and 30º cephalad from neutral radiograph can be used intraoperatively in patients with challenging anatomy to identify placement of hardware at the correct vertebral level in the lower cervical spine. It is a noninvasive technique that can help reduce the risk of wrong-site surgeries without prolonging operation time. This technique describes an alternative to the lateral radiograph and provides a solution to the difficult problem of intraoperative imaging of the mid- to lower cervical spine in 2 adequate planes.

Two adequate views of the lower cervical vertebrae are necessary to confirm the 3-dimensional location of any hardware placed during cervical spine fusion. Visualizing the lower cervical vertebrae in 2 planes intraoperatively is often a challenge because the shoulders obstruct the lateral view.¹ Techniques have been described to improve lateral visualization, including gentle traction of the arms via wrist restraints or taping the shoulders down inferiorly.^2,3 These techniques have their inadequacies, including an association with peripheral nerve injury and brachial plexopathy.⁴ In patients with stout necks, these methods may still be insufficient to achieve adequate visualization of the lower cervical vertebrae.

Invasive techniques to improve visualization have also been described. In 1 study, exposure had to be extended cephalad to allow for manual counting of cervical vertebrae when the mid- to lower cervical vertebrae had to be identified in a morbidly obese patient.⁵ More invasive spine procedures are associated with higher rates of complications, increased blood loss, more soft-tissue trauma, and longer hospital stays.⁶ We present a view 30º oblique from horizontal and 30º cephalad from neutral as a variation of the lateral radiograph that improves visualization of the mid- to lower cervical vertebrae. The authors have obtained the patients’ informed written consent for print and electronic publication of these case reports.

Technique

We used either the Smith-Robinson or Cloward approach to the anterior spine. Both techniques use the avascular plane between the medially located esophagus and trachea and the lateral sternocleidomastoid and carotid sheath to approach the anterior cervical spine. Once adequate exposure was achieved, standard anteroposterior and lateral radiographs were obtained to confirm the correct vertebral level. Gentle caudal traction was applied to the patient’s wrist straps, and when visualization continued to be compromised, a view 30º oblique from horizontal and 30º cephalad from neutral was obtained (Figure 1).

Case Series

Case 1

A 54-year-old man with a body mass index (BMI) of 50 presented with neck and bilateral arm pain, with left greater than right radicular symptoms in the C6 and C7 distribution. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) showed disc herniations at C5-C6 and C6-C7 with spinal cord signal changes, and he underwent a C5-C6 and C6-C7 anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Initial localization was determined using a lateral radiograph and vertebral needle. During hardware placement, anteroposterior and lateral fluoroscopic radiographs confirmed adequate placement of the superior screw, but visualization of the inferior portion of the plate and inferior screw was challenging (Figure 2). Our oblique 30º–30º view provided better visualization of the plate and screws in the lower cervical vertebrae than lateral imaging, and allowed confirmation that the hardware was positioned correctly (Figure 3). It took 1 attempt to achieve adequate visualization with the 30º–30º view.

Postoperatively, the patient’s radiculopathy and motor weakness improved. Radiographs confirmed adequate hardware placement, and he was discharged on postoperative day 1 (Figure 4). Imaging at the patient’s 6-week follow-up confirmed adequate fusion from C5-C7, anatomically aligned facet joints, and no hardware failure. The patient’s Neck Disability Index was 31/50 preoperatively and 26/50 at this visit.

Case 2

A 51-year-old man with a BMI of 29 presented with a long-standing history of neck pain and bilateral arm pain left greater than right in the C6 and C7 dermomyotome. MRI showed a broad-based disc herniation with foraminal narrowing at C5-C6 and C6-C7, and the patient underwent a 2-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. This patient had pronounced neck musculature, and a deeper than normal incision was required.

Intraoperative lateral fluoroscopy was obtained to confirm the C5-C6 and C6-C7 level prior to discectomy. The musculature of the patient’s neck and shoulder made visualization of the C6-C7 disc space difficult on the lateral radiograph (Figure 5). One attempt was required to obtain the 30º–30º oblique view, which was used to ensure correct placement of the screws and plate (Figure 6).

Postoperatively, the patient’s pain had improved, and radiographs confirmed adequate hardware placement. He was discharged 1 day after surgery (Figure 7). Imaging at the patient’s 6-week follow-up confirmed adequate fusion from C5-C7, stable disc spaces, and anatomically aligned facet joints. His Neck Disability Index was 34/50 preoperatively and 32/50 at 2-week follow-up.

Discussion

The aim of this study was to describe an alternative to the lateral radiograph for imaging the cervical spine in patients with challenging anatomy or in procedures involving hardware placement at the lower cervical vertebrae. Techniques have been developed to assist with improved lateral visualization, including gentle traction of the arms via wrist restraints or taping the shoulders down inferiorly.2,3 However, visualization in 2 planes continues to be a challenge in a subset of patients. It is particularly difficult to obtain adequate lateral radiographs of the cervical spine in patients with stout necks.³ In patients with stout necks, there is more obstruction of the radiography path through the cervical spine. This leads to imaging that is unclear or may fail to show the mid- to lower cervical spine. The extent to which one should rely on the 30º–30º oblique technique for adequate visualization of the cervical spine depends on the anatomy of a particular patient. Historically, it is more challenging to obtain satisfactory lateral radiographs in patients with stout necks,³ and these patients have benefited the most from using the 30º–30º degree oblique view.

Lack of visualization can lead to aborted surgeries or, potentially, surgery at the wrong level.³ A 2008 American Academy of Neurological Surgeons survey indicated that 50% of spine surgeons had performed a wrong-level surgery at least once in their career, and the cervical spine accounted for 21% of all incorrect-level spine surgeries.⁷ Intraoperative factors reported during cases of wrong-level spinal surgeries included misinterpretation of intraoperative imaging, no intraoperative imaging, and unusual anatomy or physical characteristics.⁸ Such complications can lead to revision surgery and other significant morbidities for the patient.

In most patients, fluoroscopy allows confirmation of the correct level before disc incision.³ However, operating at a lower cervical level in a patient with a short neck or prominent shoulders poses a significant problem.³ A case report from Singh and colleagues⁹ described a modified intraoperative fluoroscopic view for spinal level localization at cervicothoracic levels. Their method focuses on identifying the bony lamina and using them as landmarks to count spinal levels, whereas our 30º–30º oblique image is useful for confirmation of adequate hardware placement during anterior cervical spinal fusions. Often, the initial localization of cervical vertebral levels can be achieved with a standard lateral radiograph. We recognized the utility of the 30º–30º oblique view when we were attempting to visualize the inferior aspect of the plate and inferior screw placement.

In patients with stout necks, a lateral radiograph may show only visualization down to C4 or C5.³ Even with applying traction to the arms or taping the shoulders down, it can be impossible to visualize C6, C7, or T1 because the shoulder bones and muscles obstruct the image.³ Using a 30º–30º oblique view, we were able to obtain adequate visualization and assess the accurate placement of hardware.

Conclusion

A 30º oblique view from horizontal and 30º cephalad from neutral radiograph can be used intraoperatively in patients with challenging anatomy to identify placement of hardware at the correct vertebral level in the lower cervical spine. It is a noninvasive technique that can help reduce the risk of wrong-site surgeries without prolonging operation time. This technique describes an alternative to the lateral radiograph and provides a solution to the difficult problem of intraoperative imaging of the mid- to lower cervical spine in 2 adequate planes.

Two adequate views of the lower cervical vertebrae are necessary to confirm the 3-dimensional location of any hardware placed during cervical spine fusion. Visualizing the lower cervical vertebrae in 2 planes intraoperatively is often a challenge because the shoulders obstruct the lateral view.¹ Techniques have been described to improve lateral visualization, including gentle traction of the arms via wrist restraints or taping the shoulders down inferiorly.^2,3 These techniques have their inadequacies, including an association with peripheral nerve injury and brachial plexopathy.⁴ In patients with stout necks, these methods may still be insufficient to achieve adequate visualization of the lower cervical vertebrae.

Invasive techniques to improve visualization have also been described. In 1 study, exposure had to be extended cephalad to allow for manual counting of cervical vertebrae when the mid- to lower cervical vertebrae had to be identified in a morbidly obese patient.⁵ More invasive spine procedures are associated with higher rates of complications, increased blood loss, more soft-tissue trauma, and longer hospital stays.⁶ We present a view 30º oblique from horizontal and 30º cephalad from neutral as a variation of the lateral radiograph that improves visualization of the mid- to lower cervical vertebrae. The authors have obtained the patients’ informed written consent for print and electronic publication of these case reports.

Technique

We used either the Smith-Robinson or Cloward approach to the anterior spine. Both techniques use the avascular plane between the medially located esophagus and trachea and the lateral sternocleidomastoid and carotid sheath to approach the anterior cervical spine. Once adequate exposure was achieved, standard anteroposterior and lateral radiographs were obtained to confirm the correct vertebral level. Gentle caudal traction was applied to the patient’s wrist straps, and when visualization continued to be compromised, a view 30º oblique from horizontal and 30º cephalad from neutral was obtained (Figure 1).

Case Series

Case 1

A 54-year-old man with a body mass index (BMI) of 50 presented with neck and bilateral arm pain, with left greater than right radicular symptoms in the C6 and C7 distribution. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) showed disc herniations at C5-C6 and C6-C7 with spinal cord signal changes, and he underwent a C5-C6 and C6-C7 anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Initial localization was determined using a lateral radiograph and vertebral needle. During hardware placement, anteroposterior and lateral fluoroscopic radiographs confirmed adequate placement of the superior screw, but visualization of the inferior portion of the plate and inferior screw was challenging (Figure 2). Our oblique 30º–30º view provided better visualization of the plate and screws in the lower cervical vertebrae than lateral imaging, and allowed confirmation that the hardware was positioned correctly (Figure 3). It took 1 attempt to achieve adequate visualization with the 30º–30º view.

Postoperatively, the patient’s radiculopathy and motor weakness improved. Radiographs confirmed adequate hardware placement, and he was discharged on postoperative day 1 (Figure 4). Imaging at the patient’s 6-week follow-up confirmed adequate fusion from C5-C7, anatomically aligned facet joints, and no hardware failure. The patient’s Neck Disability Index was 31/50 preoperatively and 26/50 at this visit.

Case 2

A 51-year-old man with a BMI of 29 presented with a long-standing history of neck pain and bilateral arm pain left greater than right in the C6 and C7 dermomyotome. MRI showed a broad-based disc herniation with foraminal narrowing at C5-C6 and C6-C7, and the patient underwent a 2-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. This patient had pronounced neck musculature, and a deeper than normal incision was required.

Intraoperative lateral fluoroscopy was obtained to confirm the C5-C6 and C6-C7 level prior to discectomy. The musculature of the patient’s neck and shoulder made visualization of the C6-C7 disc space difficult on the lateral radiograph (Figure 5). One attempt was required to obtain the 30º–30º oblique view, which was used to ensure correct placement of the screws and plate (Figure 6).

Postoperatively, the patient’s pain had improved, and radiographs confirmed adequate hardware placement. He was discharged 1 day after surgery (Figure 7). Imaging at the patient’s 6-week follow-up confirmed adequate fusion from C5-C7, stable disc spaces, and anatomically aligned facet joints. His Neck Disability Index was 34/50 preoperatively and 32/50 at 2-week follow-up.

Discussion

The aim of this study was to describe an alternative to the lateral radiograph for imaging the cervical spine in patients with challenging anatomy or in procedures involving hardware placement at the lower cervical vertebrae. Techniques have been developed to assist with improved lateral visualization, including gentle traction of the arms via wrist restraints or taping the shoulders down inferiorly.2,3 However, visualization in 2 planes continues to be a challenge in a subset of patients. It is particularly difficult to obtain adequate lateral radiographs of the cervical spine in patients with stout necks.³ In patients with stout necks, there is more obstruction of the radiography path through the cervical spine. This leads to imaging that is unclear or may fail to show the mid- to lower cervical spine. The extent to which one should rely on the 30º–30º oblique technique for adequate visualization of the cervical spine depends on the anatomy of a particular patient. Historically, it is more challenging to obtain satisfactory lateral radiographs in patients with stout necks,³ and these patients have benefited the most from using the 30º–30º degree oblique view.

Lack of visualization can lead to aborted surgeries or, potentially, surgery at the wrong level.³ A 2008 American Academy of Neurological Surgeons survey indicated that 50% of spine surgeons had performed a wrong-level surgery at least once in their career, and the cervical spine accounted for 21% of all incorrect-level spine surgeries.⁷ Intraoperative factors reported during cases of wrong-level spinal surgeries included misinterpretation of intraoperative imaging, no intraoperative imaging, and unusual anatomy or physical characteristics.⁸ Such complications can lead to revision surgery and other significant morbidities for the patient.

In most patients, fluoroscopy allows confirmation of the correct level before disc incision.³ However, operating at a lower cervical level in a patient with a short neck or prominent shoulders poses a significant problem.³ A case report from Singh and colleagues⁹ described a modified intraoperative fluoroscopic view for spinal level localization at cervicothoracic levels. Their method focuses on identifying the bony lamina and using them as landmarks to count spinal levels, whereas our 30º–30º oblique image is useful for confirmation of adequate hardware placement during anterior cervical spinal fusions. Often, the initial localization of cervical vertebral levels can be achieved with a standard lateral radiograph. We recognized the utility of the 30º–30º oblique view when we were attempting to visualize the inferior aspect of the plate and inferior screw placement.

In patients with stout necks, a lateral radiograph may show only visualization down to C4 or C5.³ Even with applying traction to the arms or taping the shoulders down, it can be impossible to visualize C6, C7, or T1 because the shoulder bones and muscles obstruct the image.³ Using a 30º–30º oblique view, we were able to obtain adequate visualization and assess the accurate placement of hardware.

Conclusion

A 30º oblique view from horizontal and 30º cephalad from neutral radiograph can be used intraoperatively in patients with challenging anatomy to identify placement of hardware at the correct vertebral level in the lower cervical spine. It is a noninvasive technique that can help reduce the risk of wrong-site surgeries without prolonging operation time. This technique describes an alternative to the lateral radiograph and provides a solution to the difficult problem of intraoperative imaging of the mid- to lower cervical spine in 2 adequate planes.

Over the past 3 decades, total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has been considered a safe and effective treatment for end-stage knee arthritis.¹ However, as the population, the incidence of obesity, and life expectancy continue to increase, the number of TKAs will rise as well.^2,3 It is expected that over the next 16 years, the number of TKAs performed annually will exceed 3 million in the United States alone.⁴ This projection represents an over 600% increase from 2005 figures.⁵ Given the demographic shift expected over the next 2 decades, patients are anticipated to undergo these procedures at younger ages compared with previous generations, such that those age 65 years or younger will account for more than 55% of primary TKAs.⁶ More important, given this exponential growth in primary TKAs, there will be a concordant rise in revision procedures. It is expected that, the annual number has roughly doubled from that recorded for 2005.⁴

Compared with primary TKAs, however, revision TKAs have had less promising results, with survivorship as low as 60% over shorter periods.^7,8 In addition, recent studies have found an even higher degree of dissatisfaction and functional limitations among revision TKA patients than among primary TKA patients, 15% to 30% of whom are unhappy with their procedures.^9-11 These shortcomings of revision TKAs are thought to result from several factors, including poor bone quality, insufficient bone stock, ligamentous instability, soft-tissue incompetence, infection, malalignment, problems with extensor mechanisms, and substantial pain of uncertain etiology.

Despite there being several complex factors that can lead to worse outcomes with revision TKAs, surgeons are expected to produce results equivalent to those of primary TKAs. It is therefore imperative to delineate the objective and subjective outcomes of revision techniques to identify areas in need of improvement. In this article, we provide a concise overview of revision TKA outcomes in order to stimulate manufacturers, surgeons, and hospitals to improve on implant designs, surgical techniques, and care guidelines for revision TKA. We review the evidence on 5 points: aseptic survivorship, functional outcomes, patient satisfaction, quality of life (QOL), and economic impact. In addition, we compare available outcome data for revision and primary TKAs.

1. Aseptic survivorship

Fehring and colleagues¹² in 2001 and Sharkey and colleagues¹³ in 2002 evaluated mechanisms of failure for revision TKA and reported many failures resulted from infection or were associated with the implant, and occurred within 2 years after the primary procedure. More recently, Dy and colleagues¹⁴ found the most common reason for revision was aseptic loosening, followed by infection. The present review focuses on aseptic femoral and tibial revision.

The failure rate for revision TKA is substantially higher than for primary TKA with the same type of prosthesis because of the complexity of the revision procedure, the increasing constraint of the implant design, and the higher degree of bone loss. (Appendix 1 lists risk factors for revision surgery. Appendix 2 is a complete list of survivorship outcomes of revision TKA.)

Sheng and colleagues¹⁵ in 2006 and Koskinen and colleagues¹⁶ in 2008 analyzed Finnish Arthroplasty Register data to determine failure rates for revision and primary TKA. Sheng and colleagues¹⁵ examined survivorship of 2637 revision TKAs (performed between 1990 and 2002) for all-cause endpoints after first revision procedure. Survivorship rates were 89% (5 years) and 79% (10 years), while Koskinen and colleagues¹⁶ noted all-cause survival rates of 80% at 15 years. More recently, in 2013, the New Zealand Orthopaedic Association¹⁷ analyzed New Zealand Joint Registry data for revision and re-revision rates (rates of revision per 100 component years) for 64,556 primary TKAs performed between 1999 and 2012. During the period studied, 1684 revisions were performed, reflecting a 2.6% revision rate, a 0.50% rate of revision per 100 component years, and a 13-year Kaplan-Meier survivorship of 94.5%. The most common reasons for revision were pain, deep infection, and tibial component loosening (Table 1).

Posterior stabilized implants

Laskin and Ohnsorge¹⁸ retrospectively reviewed the cases of 58 patients who underwent unilateral revision TKA (with a posterior stabilized implant), of which 42% were for coronal instability and 44% for a loose tibial component. At minimum 4-year follow-up, 52 of the 58 patients had anteroposterior instability of less than 5 mm. In addition, 5 years after surgery, aseptic survivorship was 96%. Meijer and colleagues¹⁹ conducted a retrospective comparative study of 69 revision TKAs (65 patients) in which 9 knees received a primary implant and 60 received a revision implant with stems and augmentation (60 = 37 posterior stabilized, 20 constrained, 3 rotating hinge). Survival rates for the primary implants were 100% (1 year), 73% (2 years), and 44% (5 years), and survival rates for the revision implants were significantly better: 95% (1 year), 92% (2 years), and 92% (5 years) (hazard ratio, 5.87; P = .008). The authors therefore indicated that it was unclear whether using a primary implant should still be an option in revision TKA and, if it is used, whether it should be limited to less complex situations in which bone loss and ligament damage are minimal (Table 2).

Constrained and semiconstrained implants

In a study of 234 knees (209 patients) with soft-tissue deficiency, Wilke and colleagues²⁰ evaluated the long-term survivorship of revision TKA with use of a semiconstrained modular fixed-bearing implant system. Overall Kaplan-Meier survival rates were 91% (5 years) and 81% (10 years) at a mean follow-up of 9 years. When aseptic revision was evaluated, however, the survival rates increased to 95% (5 years) and 90% (10 years). The authors noted that male sex was the only variable that significantly increased the risk for re-revision (hazard ratio, 2.07; P = .02), which they attributed to potentially higher activity levels. In 2006 and 2011, Lachiewicz and Soileau^21,22 evaluated the survival of first- and second-generation constrained condylar prostheses in primary TKA cases with severe valgus deformities, incompetent collateral ligaments, or severe flexion contractures. Of the 54 knees (44 patients) with first-generation prostheses, 42 (34 patients) had a mean follow-up of 9 years (range, 5-16 years). Ten-year survival with failure, defined as component revision for loosening, was 96%. The 27 TKAs using second-generation prostheses had a mean follow-up of about 5 years (range, 2-12 years). At final follow-up, there were no revisions for loosening or patellar problems, but 6 knees (22%) required lateral retinacular release of the patella (Table 3).

Rotating hinge implants

Neumann and colleagues²³ evaluated the clinical and radiographic outcomes of 24 rotating hinge prostheses used for aseptic loosening with substantial bone loss and collateral ligament instability. At a mean follow-up of 56 months (range, 3-5 years), there was no evidence of loosening of any implants, and nonprogressive radiolucent lines were found in only 2 tibial components. Kowalczewski and colleagues²⁴ evaluated the clinical and radiologic outcomes of 12 primary TKAs using a rotating hinge knee prosthesis at a minimum follow-up of 10 years. By most recent follow-up, no implants had been revised for loosening, and only 3 had nonprogressive radiolucent lines (Table 4).

Endoprostheses (modular segmental implants)

In a systematic review of 9 studies, Korim and colleagues²⁵ evaluated 241 endoprostheses used for limb salvage under nononcologic conditions. Mean follow-up was about 3 years (range, 1-5 years). The devices were used to treat various conditions, including periprosthetic fracture, bone loss with aseptic loosening, and ligament insufficiency. The overall reoperation rate was 17% (41/241 cases). Mechanical failures were less frequent (6%-19%) (Table 5).

2. Functional outcomes

The goal in both primary and revision TKA is to restore the function and mobility of the knee and to alleviate pain. Whereas primary TKAs are realistically predictable and reproducible in their outcomes, revision TKAs are vastly more complicated, which can result in worse postoperative outcomes and function. In addition, revision TKAs may require extensive surgical exposure, which causes more tissue and muscle damage, prolonging rehabilitation. (Appendix 3 is a complete list of studies of functional outcomes of revision TKA.)

This discrepancy in functional outcomes between primary and revision TKA begins as early as the postoperative inpatient rehabilitation period. Using the functional independence measurement (FIM), which estimates performance of activities of daily living, mobility, and cognition, Vincent and colleagues²⁶ evaluated the functional improvement produced by revision versus primary TKA during inpatient rehabilitation. They compared 424 consecutive primary TKAs with 138 revision TKAs. For both groups, FIM scores increased significantly (P = .015) between admission and discharge. On discharge, however, FIM scores were significantly (P = .01) higher for the primary group than the revision group (29 and 27 points, respectively). Furthermore, in the evaluation of mechanisms of failure, patients who had revision TKA for mechanical or pain-related problems did markedly better than those who had revision TKA for infection.

Compared with primary knee implants, revision implants require increasing constraint. We assume increasing constraint affects knee biomechanics, leading to worsening functional outcomes. In a study of 60 revision TKAs (57 patients) using posterior stabilized, condylar constrained, or rotating hinge prostheses, Vasso and colleagues²⁷ examined functional outcomes at a median follow-up of 9 years (range, 4-12 years). At most recent follow-up, mean International Knee Society (IKS) Knee and Function scores were 81 (range, 48-97) and 79 (range, 56-92), mean Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS) score was 84 (range, 62-98), and mean range of motion (ROM) was 121° (range, 98°-132°) (P < .001). Although there were no significant differences in IKS and HSS scores between prosthesis types, ROM was significantly (P < .01) wider in the posterior stabilized group than in the condylar constrained and rotating hinge groups (127° vs 112° and 108°), suggesting increasing constraint resulted in decreased ROM. Several studies have found increasing constraint might lead to reduced function.^28-30

However, Hwang and colleagues³¹ evaluated functional outcomes in 36 revision TKAs and noted that the cemented posterior stabilized (n = 8), condylar constrained (n = 25), and rotating hinge (n = 13) prostheses used did not differ in their mean Knee Society scores (78, 81, and 83, respectively).

There remains a marked disparity in patient limitations seen after revision versus primary TKA. Given the positive results being obtained with newer implants, studies might suggest recent generations of prostheses have allowed designs to be comparable. As design development continues, we may come closer to achieving outcomes comparable to those of primary TKA.

3. Patient satisfaction

Several recent reports have shown that 10% to 25% of patients who underwent primary TKA were dissatisfied with their surgery^30,32; other studies have found patient satisfaction often correlating to function and pain.^33-35 Given the worse outcomes for revision TKA (outlined in the preceding section), the substantial pain accompanying a second, more complex procedure, and the extensive rehabilitation expected, we suspect patients who undergo revision TKA are even less satisfied with their surgery than their primary counterparts are. (See Appendix 4 for a complete list of studies of patient satisfaction after revision TKA.)

Barrack and colleagues³² evaluated a consecutive series of 238 patients followed up for at least 1 year after revision TKA. Patients were asked to rate their degree of satisfaction with both their primary procedure and the revision and to indicate their expectations regarding their revision prosthesis. Mean satisfaction score was 7.4 (maximum = 10), with 13% of patients dissatisfied, 18% somewhat satisfied, and 69% satisfied. Seventy-four percent of patients expected their revision prosthesis to last longer than the primary prosthesis.

Greidanus and colleagues³⁶ evaluated patient satisfaction in 60 revision TKA cases and 199 primary TKA cases at 2-year follow-up. The primary TKA group had significantly (P < .01) higher satisfaction scores in a comparison with the revision TKA group: Global (86 vs 73), Pain Relief (88 vs 70), Function (83 vs 67), and Recreation (77 vs 62). These findings support the satisfaction rates reported by Dahm and colleagues^33,34: 91% for primary TKA patients and 77% for revision TKA patients.

4. Quality of life

Procedure complexity leads to reduced survivorship, function, and mobility, longer rehabilitation, and decreased QOL for revision TKA patients relative to primary TKA patients.³⁷ (See Appendix 5 for a complete list of studies of QOL outcomes of revision TKA.)

Greidanus and colleagues³⁶ evaluated joint-specific QOL (using the 12-item Oxford Knee Score; OKS) and generic QOL (using the 12-Item Short Form Health Survey; SF-12) in 60 revision TKA cases and 199 primary TKA cases at a mean follow-up of 2 years. (The OKS survey is used to evaluate patient perspectives on TKA outcomes,³⁸ and the multipurpose SF-12 questionnaire is used to assess mental and physical function and general health-related QOL.³⁹) Compared with the revision TKA group, the primary TKA group had significantly higher OKS after surgery (78 vs 68; P = .01) as well as significantly higher SF-12 scores: Global (84 vs 72; P = .01), Mental (54 vs 50; P = .03), and Physical (43 vs 37; P = .01). Similarly, Ghomrawi and colleagues⁴⁰ evaluated patterns of improvement in 308 patients (318 knees) who had revision TKA. At 24-month follow-up, mean SF-36 Physical and Mental scores were 35 and 52, respectively.

Deehan and colleagues⁴¹ used the Nottingham Health Profile (NHP) to compare 94 patients’ health-related QOL scores before revision TKA with their scores 3 months, 1 year, and 5 years after revision. NHP Pain subscale scores were significantly lower 3 and 12 months after surgery than before surgery, but this difference was no longer seen at the 5-year follow-up. There was no significant improvement in scores on the other 5 NHP subscales (Sleep, Energy, Emotion, Mobility, Social Isolation) at any time points.

As shown in the literature, patients’ QOL outcomes improve after revision TKA, but these gains are not at the level of patients who undergo primary TKA.^36,41 Given that revision surgery is more extensive, and that perhaps revision patients have poorer muscle function, they usually do not return to the level they attained after their index procedure.

5. Economic impact

Consistent with the outcomes already described, the economic impact of revision TKAs is excess expenditures and costs to patients and health care institutions.⁴² The sources of this impact are higher implant costs, extra operative trays and times, longer hospital stays, more rehabilitation, and increased medication use.⁴³ Revision TKA costs range from $49,000 to more than $100,000—a tremendous increase over primary TKA costs ($25,000-$30,000).^43-45 Furthermore, the annual economic burden associated with revision TKA, now $2.7 billion, is expected to exceed $13 billion by 2030.⁴⁶ In the United States, about $23.2 billion will be spent on 926,527 primary TKAs in 2015; significantly, the costs associated with revising just 10% of these cases account for almost 50% of the total cost of the primary procedures.⁴⁶

In a retrospective cost-identification multicenter cohort study, Bozic and colleagues⁴⁷ found that both-component and single-component revisions, compared with primary procedures, were associated with significantly increased operative time (~265 and 221 minutes vs 200 minutes), use of allograft bone (23% and 14% vs 1%), length of stay (5.4 and 5.7 days vs 5.0 days), and percentage of patients discharged to extended-care facilities (26% and 26% vs 25%) (P < .0001). Hospital costs for both- and single-component revisions were 138% and 114% higher than costs for primary procedures (P < .0001). More recently, Kallala and colleagues⁴⁴ analyzed UK National Health Service data and compared the costs of revision for infection with revision for other causes (pain, instability, aseptic loosening, fracture). Mean length of stay associated with revision for infection (21.5 days) was more than double that associated with revision for aseptic loosening (9.5 days; P < .0001), and mean cost of revision for septic causes (£30,011) was more than 3 times that of revision for other causes (£9655; P < .0001). The authors concluded that the higher costs of revision knee surgery have a considerable economic impact, especially in infection cases.

With more extensive procedures, long-stem or more constrained prostheses are often needed to obtain adequate fixation and stability. The resulting increased, substantial economic burden is felt by patients and the health care system. Given that health care reimbursements are declining, hospitals that perform revision TKAs can sustain marked financial losses. Some centers are asking whether it is cost-effective to continue to perform these types of procedures. We must find new ways to provide revision procedures using less costly implants and tools so that centers will continue to make these procedures available to patients.

Conclusion

Given the exponential growth in primary TKAs, there will be a concordant increase in revision TKAs in the decades to come. This review provides a concise overview of revision TKA outcomes. Given the low level of evidence regarding revision TKAs, we need further higher quality studies of their prostheses and outcomes. Specifically, we need systematic reviews and meta-analyses to provide higher quality evidence regarding outcomes of using individual prosthetic designs.

Over the past 3 decades, total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has been considered a safe and effective treatment for end-stage knee arthritis.¹ However, as the population, the incidence of obesity, and life expectancy continue to increase, the number of TKAs will rise as well.^2,3 It is expected that over the next 16 years, the number of TKAs performed annually will exceed 3 million in the United States alone.⁴ This projection represents an over 600% increase from 2005 figures.⁵ Given the demographic shift expected over the next 2 decades, patients are anticipated to undergo these procedures at younger ages compared with previous generations, such that those age 65 years or younger will account for more than 55% of primary TKAs.⁶ More important, given this exponential growth in primary TKAs, there will be a concordant rise in revision procedures. It is expected that, the annual number has roughly doubled from that recorded for 2005.⁴

Compared with primary TKAs, however, revision TKAs have had less promising results, with survivorship as low as 60% over shorter periods.^7,8 In addition, recent studies have found an even higher degree of dissatisfaction and functional limitations among revision TKA patients than among primary TKA patients, 15% to 30% of whom are unhappy with their procedures.^9-11 These shortcomings of revision TKAs are thought to result from several factors, including poor bone quality, insufficient bone stock, ligamentous instability, soft-tissue incompetence, infection, malalignment, problems with extensor mechanisms, and substantial pain of uncertain etiology.

Despite there being several complex factors that can lead to worse outcomes with revision TKAs, surgeons are expected to produce results equivalent to those of primary TKAs. It is therefore imperative to delineate the objective and subjective outcomes of revision techniques to identify areas in need of improvement. In this article, we provide a concise overview of revision TKA outcomes in order to stimulate manufacturers, surgeons, and hospitals to improve on implant designs, surgical techniques, and care guidelines for revision TKA. We review the evidence on 5 points: aseptic survivorship, functional outcomes, patient satisfaction, quality of life (QOL), and economic impact. In addition, we compare available outcome data for revision and primary TKAs.

1. Aseptic survivorship

Fehring and colleagues¹² in 2001 and Sharkey and colleagues¹³ in 2002 evaluated mechanisms of failure for revision TKA and reported many failures resulted from infection or were associated with the implant, and occurred within 2 years after the primary procedure. More recently, Dy and colleagues¹⁴ found the most common reason for revision was aseptic loosening, followed by infection. The present review focuses on aseptic femoral and tibial revision.

The failure rate for revision TKA is substantially higher than for primary TKA with the same type of prosthesis because of the complexity of the revision procedure, the increasing constraint of the implant design, and the higher degree of bone loss. (Appendix 1 lists risk factors for revision surgery. Appendix 2 is a complete list of survivorship outcomes of revision TKA.)

Sheng and colleagues¹⁵ in 2006 and Koskinen and colleagues¹⁶ in 2008 analyzed Finnish Arthroplasty Register data to determine failure rates for revision and primary TKA. Sheng and colleagues¹⁵ examined survivorship of 2637 revision TKAs (performed between 1990 and 2002) for all-cause endpoints after first revision procedure. Survivorship rates were 89% (5 years) and 79% (10 years), while Koskinen and colleagues¹⁶ noted all-cause survival rates of 80% at 15 years. More recently, in 2013, the New Zealand Orthopaedic Association¹⁷ analyzed New Zealand Joint Registry data for revision and re-revision rates (rates of revision per 100 component years) for 64,556 primary TKAs performed between 1999 and 2012. During the period studied, 1684 revisions were performed, reflecting a 2.6% revision rate, a 0.50% rate of revision per 100 component years, and a 13-year Kaplan-Meier survivorship of 94.5%. The most common reasons for revision were pain, deep infection, and tibial component loosening (Table 1).

Posterior stabilized implants

Laskin and Ohnsorge¹⁸ retrospectively reviewed the cases of 58 patients who underwent unilateral revision TKA (with a posterior stabilized implant), of which 42% were for coronal instability and 44% for a loose tibial component. At minimum 4-year follow-up, 52 of the 58 patients had anteroposterior instability of less than 5 mm. In addition, 5 years after surgery, aseptic survivorship was 96%. Meijer and colleagues¹⁹ conducted a retrospective comparative study of 69 revision TKAs (65 patients) in which 9 knees received a primary implant and 60 received a revision implant with stems and augmentation (60 = 37 posterior stabilized, 20 constrained, 3 rotating hinge). Survival rates for the primary implants were 100% (1 year), 73% (2 years), and 44% (5 years), and survival rates for the revision implants were significantly better: 95% (1 year), 92% (2 years), and 92% (5 years) (hazard ratio, 5.87; P = .008). The authors therefore indicated that it was unclear whether using a primary implant should still be an option in revision TKA and, if it is used, whether it should be limited to less complex situations in which bone loss and ligament damage are minimal (Table 2).

Constrained and semiconstrained implants

In a study of 234 knees (209 patients) with soft-tissue deficiency, Wilke and colleagues²⁰ evaluated the long-term survivorship of revision TKA with use of a semiconstrained modular fixed-bearing implant system. Overall Kaplan-Meier survival rates were 91% (5 years) and 81% (10 years) at a mean follow-up of 9 years. When aseptic revision was evaluated, however, the survival rates increased to 95% (5 years) and 90% (10 years). The authors noted that male sex was the only variable that significantly increased the risk for re-revision (hazard ratio, 2.07; P = .02), which they attributed to potentially higher activity levels. In 2006 and 2011, Lachiewicz and Soileau^21,22 evaluated the survival of first- and second-generation constrained condylar prostheses in primary TKA cases with severe valgus deformities, incompetent collateral ligaments, or severe flexion contractures. Of the 54 knees (44 patients) with first-generation prostheses, 42 (34 patients) had a mean follow-up of 9 years (range, 5-16 years). Ten-year survival with failure, defined as component revision for loosening, was 96%. The 27 TKAs using second-generation prostheses had a mean follow-up of about 5 years (range, 2-12 years). At final follow-up, there were no revisions for loosening or patellar problems, but 6 knees (22%) required lateral retinacular release of the patella (Table 3).

Rotating hinge implants

Neumann and colleagues²³ evaluated the clinical and radiographic outcomes of 24 rotating hinge prostheses used for aseptic loosening with substantial bone loss and collateral ligament instability. At a mean follow-up of 56 months (range, 3-5 years), there was no evidence of loosening of any implants, and nonprogressive radiolucent lines were found in only 2 tibial components. Kowalczewski and colleagues²⁴ evaluated the clinical and radiologic outcomes of 12 primary TKAs using a rotating hinge knee prosthesis at a minimum follow-up of 10 years. By most recent follow-up, no implants had been revised for loosening, and only 3 had nonprogressive radiolucent lines (Table 4).

Endoprostheses (modular segmental implants)

In a systematic review of 9 studies, Korim and colleagues²⁵ evaluated 241 endoprostheses used for limb salvage under nononcologic conditions. Mean follow-up was about 3 years (range, 1-5 years). The devices were used to treat various conditions, including periprosthetic fracture, bone loss with aseptic loosening, and ligament insufficiency. The overall reoperation rate was 17% (41/241 cases). Mechanical failures were less frequent (6%-19%) (Table 5).

2. Functional outcomes

The goal in both primary and revision TKA is to restore the function and mobility of the knee and to alleviate pain. Whereas primary TKAs are realistically predictable and reproducible in their outcomes, revision TKAs are vastly more complicated, which can result in worse postoperative outcomes and function. In addition, revision TKAs may require extensive surgical exposure, which causes more tissue and muscle damage, prolonging rehabilitation. (Appendix 3 is a complete list of studies of functional outcomes of revision TKA.)

This discrepancy in functional outcomes between primary and revision TKA begins as early as the postoperative inpatient rehabilitation period. Using the functional independence measurement (FIM), which estimates performance of activities of daily living, mobility, and cognition, Vincent and colleagues²⁶ evaluated the functional improvement produced by revision versus primary TKA during inpatient rehabilitation. They compared 424 consecutive primary TKAs with 138 revision TKAs. For both groups, FIM scores increased significantly (P = .015) between admission and discharge. On discharge, however, FIM scores were significantly (P = .01) higher for the primary group than the revision group (29 and 27 points, respectively). Furthermore, in the evaluation of mechanisms of failure, patients who had revision TKA for mechanical or pain-related problems did markedly better than those who had revision TKA for infection.

Compared with primary knee implants, revision implants require increasing constraint. We assume increasing constraint affects knee biomechanics, leading to worsening functional outcomes. In a study of 60 revision TKAs (57 patients) using posterior stabilized, condylar constrained, or rotating hinge prostheses, Vasso and colleagues²⁷ examined functional outcomes at a median follow-up of 9 years (range, 4-12 years). At most recent follow-up, mean International Knee Society (IKS) Knee and Function scores were 81 (range, 48-97) and 79 (range, 56-92), mean Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS) score was 84 (range, 62-98), and mean range of motion (ROM) was 121° (range, 98°-132°) (P < .001). Although there were no significant differences in IKS and HSS scores between prosthesis types, ROM was significantly (P < .01) wider in the posterior stabilized group than in the condylar constrained and rotating hinge groups (127° vs 112° and 108°), suggesting increasing constraint resulted in decreased ROM. Several studies have found increasing constraint might lead to reduced function.^28-30

However, Hwang and colleagues³¹ evaluated functional outcomes in 36 revision TKAs and noted that the cemented posterior stabilized (n = 8), condylar constrained (n = 25), and rotating hinge (n = 13) prostheses used did not differ in their mean Knee Society scores (78, 81, and 83, respectively).

There remains a marked disparity in patient limitations seen after revision versus primary TKA. Given the positive results being obtained with newer implants, studies might suggest recent generations of prostheses have allowed designs to be comparable. As design development continues, we may come closer to achieving outcomes comparable to those of primary TKA.

3. Patient satisfaction

Several recent reports have shown that 10% to 25% of patients who underwent primary TKA were dissatisfied with their surgery^30,32; other studies have found patient satisfaction often correlating to function and pain.^33-35 Given the worse outcomes for revision TKA (outlined in the preceding section), the substantial pain accompanying a second, more complex procedure, and the extensive rehabilitation expected, we suspect patients who undergo revision TKA are even less satisfied with their surgery than their primary counterparts are. (See Appendix 4 for a complete list of studies of patient satisfaction after revision TKA.)

Barrack and colleagues³² evaluated a consecutive series of 238 patients followed up for at least 1 year after revision TKA. Patients were asked to rate their degree of satisfaction with both their primary procedure and the revision and to indicate their expectations regarding their revision prosthesis. Mean satisfaction score was 7.4 (maximum = 10), with 13% of patients dissatisfied, 18% somewhat satisfied, and 69% satisfied. Seventy-four percent of patients expected their revision prosthesis to last longer than the primary prosthesis.

Greidanus and colleagues³⁶ evaluated patient satisfaction in 60 revision TKA cases and 199 primary TKA cases at 2-year follow-up. The primary TKA group had significantly (P < .01) higher satisfaction scores in a comparison with the revision TKA group: Global (86 vs 73), Pain Relief (88 vs 70), Function (83 vs 67), and Recreation (77 vs 62). These findings support the satisfaction rates reported by Dahm and colleagues^33,34: 91% for primary TKA patients and 77% for revision TKA patients.

4. Quality of life

Procedure complexity leads to reduced survivorship, function, and mobility, longer rehabilitation, and decreased QOL for revision TKA patients relative to primary TKA patients.³⁷ (See Appendix 5 for a complete list of studies of QOL outcomes of revision TKA.)

Greidanus and colleagues³⁶ evaluated joint-specific QOL (using the 12-item Oxford Knee Score; OKS) and generic QOL (using the 12-Item Short Form Health Survey; SF-12) in 60 revision TKA cases and 199 primary TKA cases at a mean follow-up of 2 years. (The OKS survey is used to evaluate patient perspectives on TKA outcomes,³⁸ and the multipurpose SF-12 questionnaire is used to assess mental and physical function and general health-related QOL.³⁹) Compared with the revision TKA group, the primary TKA group had significantly higher OKS after surgery (78 vs 68; P = .01) as well as significantly higher SF-12 scores: Global (84 vs 72; P = .01), Mental (54 vs 50; P = .03), and Physical (43 vs 37; P = .01). Similarly, Ghomrawi and colleagues⁴⁰ evaluated patterns of improvement in 308 patients (318 knees) who had revision TKA. At 24-month follow-up, mean SF-36 Physical and Mental scores were 35 and 52, respectively.

Deehan and colleagues⁴¹ used the Nottingham Health Profile (NHP) to compare 94 patients’ health-related QOL scores before revision TKA with their scores 3 months, 1 year, and 5 years after revision. NHP Pain subscale scores were significantly lower 3 and 12 months after surgery than before surgery, but this difference was no longer seen at the 5-year follow-up. There was no significant improvement in scores on the other 5 NHP subscales (Sleep, Energy, Emotion, Mobility, Social Isolation) at any time points.

As shown in the literature, patients’ QOL outcomes improve after revision TKA, but these gains are not at the level of patients who undergo primary TKA.^36,41 Given that revision surgery is more extensive, and that perhaps revision patients have poorer muscle function, they usually do not return to the level they attained after their index procedure.

5. Economic impact

Consistent with the outcomes already described, the economic impact of revision TKAs is excess expenditures and costs to patients and health care institutions.⁴² The sources of this impact are higher implant costs, extra operative trays and times, longer hospital stays, more rehabilitation, and increased medication use.⁴³ Revision TKA costs range from $49,000 to more than $100,000—a tremendous increase over primary TKA costs ($25,000-$30,000).^43-45 Furthermore, the annual economic burden associated with revision TKA, now $2.7 billion, is expected to exceed $13 billion by 2030.⁴⁶ In the United States, about $23.2 billion will be spent on 926,527 primary TKAs in 2015; significantly, the costs associated with revising just 10% of these cases account for almost 50% of the total cost of the primary procedures.⁴⁶

In a retrospective cost-identification multicenter cohort study, Bozic and colleagues⁴⁷ found that both-component and single-component revisions, compared with primary procedures, were associated with significantly increased operative time (~265 and 221 minutes vs 200 minutes), use of allograft bone (23% and 14% vs 1%), length of stay (5.4 and 5.7 days vs 5.0 days), and percentage of patients discharged to extended-care facilities (26% and 26% vs 25%) (P < .0001). Hospital costs for both- and single-component revisions were 138% and 114% higher than costs for primary procedures (P < .0001). More recently, Kallala and colleagues⁴⁴ analyzed UK National Health Service data and compared the costs of revision for infection with revision for other causes (pain, instability, aseptic loosening, fracture). Mean length of stay associated with revision for infection (21.5 days) was more than double that associated with revision for aseptic loosening (9.5 days; P < .0001), and mean cost of revision for septic causes (£30,011) was more than 3 times that of revision for other causes (£9655; P < .0001). The authors concluded that the higher costs of revision knee surgery have a considerable economic impact, especially in infection cases.

With more extensive procedures, long-stem or more constrained prostheses are often needed to obtain adequate fixation and stability. The resulting increased, substantial economic burden is felt by patients and the health care system. Given that health care reimbursements are declining, hospitals that perform revision TKAs can sustain marked financial losses. Some centers are asking whether it is cost-effective to continue to perform these types of procedures. We must find new ways to provide revision procedures using less costly implants and tools so that centers will continue to make these procedures available to patients.

Conclusion

Given the exponential growth in primary TKAs, there will be a concordant increase in revision TKAs in the decades to come. This review provides a concise overview of revision TKA outcomes. Given the low level of evidence regarding revision TKAs, we need further higher quality studies of their prostheses and outcomes. Specifically, we need systematic reviews and meta-analyses to provide higher quality evidence regarding outcomes of using individual prosthetic designs.

Over the past 3 decades, total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has been considered a safe and effective treatment for end-stage knee arthritis.¹ However, as the population, the incidence of obesity, and life expectancy continue to increase, the number of TKAs will rise as well.^2,3 It is expected that over the next 16 years, the number of TKAs performed annually will exceed 3 million in the United States alone.⁴ This projection represents an over 600% increase from 2005 figures.⁵ Given the demographic shift expected over the next 2 decades, patients are anticipated to undergo these procedures at younger ages compared with previous generations, such that those age 65 years or younger will account for more than 55% of primary TKAs.⁶ More important, given this exponential growth in primary TKAs, there will be a concordant rise in revision procedures. It is expected that, the annual number has roughly doubled from that recorded for 2005.⁴

Compared with primary TKAs, however, revision TKAs have had less promising results, with survivorship as low as 60% over shorter periods.^7,8 In addition, recent studies have found an even higher degree of dissatisfaction and functional limitations among revision TKA patients than among primary TKA patients, 15% to 30% of whom are unhappy with their procedures.^9-11 These shortcomings of revision TKAs are thought to result from several factors, including poor bone quality, insufficient bone stock, ligamentous instability, soft-tissue incompetence, infection, malalignment, problems with extensor mechanisms, and substantial pain of uncertain etiology.

Despite there being several complex factors that can lead to worse outcomes with revision TKAs, surgeons are expected to produce results equivalent to those of primary TKAs. It is therefore imperative to delineate the objective and subjective outcomes of revision techniques to identify areas in need of improvement. In this article, we provide a concise overview of revision TKA outcomes in order to stimulate manufacturers, surgeons, and hospitals to improve on implant designs, surgical techniques, and care guidelines for revision TKA. We review the evidence on 5 points: aseptic survivorship, functional outcomes, patient satisfaction, quality of life (QOL), and economic impact. In addition, we compare available outcome data for revision and primary TKAs.

1. Aseptic survivorship

Fehring and colleagues¹² in 2001 and Sharkey and colleagues¹³ in 2002 evaluated mechanisms of failure for revision TKA and reported many failures resulted from infection or were associated with the implant, and occurred within 2 years after the primary procedure. More recently, Dy and colleagues¹⁴ found the most common reason for revision was aseptic loosening, followed by infection. The present review focuses on aseptic femoral and tibial revision.

The failure rate for revision TKA is substantially higher than for primary TKA with the same type of prosthesis because of the complexity of the revision procedure, the increasing constraint of the implant design, and the higher degree of bone loss. (Appendix 1 lists risk factors for revision surgery. Appendix 2 is a complete list of survivorship outcomes of revision TKA.)

Sheng and colleagues¹⁵ in 2006 and Koskinen and colleagues¹⁶ in 2008 analyzed Finnish Arthroplasty Register data to determine failure rates for revision and primary TKA. Sheng and colleagues¹⁵ examined survivorship of 2637 revision TKAs (performed between 1990 and 2002) for all-cause endpoints after first revision procedure. Survivorship rates were 89% (5 years) and 79% (10 years), while Koskinen and colleagues¹⁶ noted all-cause survival rates of 80% at 15 years. More recently, in 2013, the New Zealand Orthopaedic Association¹⁷ analyzed New Zealand Joint Registry data for revision and re-revision rates (rates of revision per 100 component years) for 64,556 primary TKAs performed between 1999 and 2012. During the period studied, 1684 revisions were performed, reflecting a 2.6% revision rate, a 0.50% rate of revision per 100 component years, and a 13-year Kaplan-Meier survivorship of 94.5%. The most common reasons for revision were pain, deep infection, and tibial component loosening (Table 1).

Posterior stabilized implants

Laskin and Ohnsorge¹⁸ retrospectively reviewed the cases of 58 patients who underwent unilateral revision TKA (with a posterior stabilized implant), of which 42% were for coronal instability and 44% for a loose tibial component. At minimum 4-year follow-up, 52 of the 58 patients had anteroposterior instability of less than 5 mm. In addition, 5 years after surgery, aseptic survivorship was 96%. Meijer and colleagues¹⁹ conducted a retrospective comparative study of 69 revision TKAs (65 patients) in which 9 knees received a primary implant and 60 received a revision implant with stems and augmentation (60 = 37 posterior stabilized, 20 constrained, 3 rotating hinge). Survival rates for the primary implants were 100% (1 year), 73% (2 years), and 44% (5 years), and survival rates for the revision implants were significantly better: 95% (1 year), 92% (2 years), and 92% (5 years) (hazard ratio, 5.87; P = .008). The authors therefore indicated that it was unclear whether using a primary implant should still be an option in revision TKA and, if it is used, whether it should be limited to less complex situations in which bone loss and ligament damage are minimal (Table 2).

Constrained and semiconstrained implants

In a study of 234 knees (209 patients) with soft-tissue deficiency, Wilke and colleagues²⁰ evaluated the long-term survivorship of revision TKA with use of a semiconstrained modular fixed-bearing implant system. Overall Kaplan-Meier survival rates were 91% (5 years) and 81% (10 years) at a mean follow-up of 9 years. When aseptic revision was evaluated, however, the survival rates increased to 95% (5 years) and 90% (10 years). The authors noted that male sex was the only variable that significantly increased the risk for re-revision (hazard ratio, 2.07; P = .02), which they attributed to potentially higher activity levels. In 2006 and 2011, Lachiewicz and Soileau^21,22 evaluated the survival of first- and second-generation constrained condylar prostheses in primary TKA cases with severe valgus deformities, incompetent collateral ligaments, or severe flexion contractures. Of the 54 knees (44 patients) with first-generation prostheses, 42 (34 patients) had a mean follow-up of 9 years (range, 5-16 years). Ten-year survival with failure, defined as component revision for loosening, was 96%. The 27 TKAs using second-generation prostheses had a mean follow-up of about 5 years (range, 2-12 years). At final follow-up, there were no revisions for loosening or patellar problems, but 6 knees (22%) required lateral retinacular release of the patella (Table 3).

Rotating hinge implants

Neumann and colleagues²³ evaluated the clinical and radiographic outcomes of 24 rotating hinge prostheses used for aseptic loosening with substantial bone loss and collateral ligament instability. At a mean follow-up of 56 months (range, 3-5 years), there was no evidence of loosening of any implants, and nonprogressive radiolucent lines were found in only 2 tibial components. Kowalczewski and colleagues²⁴ evaluated the clinical and radiologic outcomes of 12 primary TKAs using a rotating hinge knee prosthesis at a minimum follow-up of 10 years. By most recent follow-up, no implants had been revised for loosening, and only 3 had nonprogressive radiolucent lines (Table 4).

Endoprostheses (modular segmental implants)

In a systematic review of 9 studies, Korim and colleagues²⁵ evaluated 241 endoprostheses used for limb salvage under nononcologic conditions. Mean follow-up was about 3 years (range, 1-5 years). The devices were used to treat various conditions, including periprosthetic fracture, bone loss with aseptic loosening, and ligament insufficiency. The overall reoperation rate was 17% (41/241 cases). Mechanical failures were less frequent (6%-19%) (Table 5).

2. Functional outcomes

The goal in both primary and revision TKA is to restore the function and mobility of the knee and to alleviate pain. Whereas primary TKAs are realistically predictable and reproducible in their outcomes, revision TKAs are vastly more complicated, which can result in worse postoperative outcomes and function. In addition, revision TKAs may require extensive surgical exposure, which causes more tissue and muscle damage, prolonging rehabilitation. (Appendix 3 is a complete list of studies of functional outcomes of revision TKA.)

This discrepancy in functional outcomes between primary and revision TKA begins as early as the postoperative inpatient rehabilitation period. Using the functional independence measurement (FIM), which estimates performance of activities of daily living, mobility, and cognition, Vincent and colleagues²⁶ evaluated the functional improvement produced by revision versus primary TKA during inpatient rehabilitation. They compared 424 consecutive primary TKAs with 138 revision TKAs. For both groups, FIM scores increased significantly (P = .015) between admission and discharge. On discharge, however, FIM scores were significantly (P = .01) higher for the primary group than the revision group (29 and 27 points, respectively). Furthermore, in the evaluation of mechanisms of failure, patients who had revision TKA for mechanical or pain-related problems did markedly better than those who had revision TKA for infection.

Compared with primary knee implants, revision implants require increasing constraint. We assume increasing constraint affects knee biomechanics, leading to worsening functional outcomes. In a study of 60 revision TKAs (57 patients) using posterior stabilized, condylar constrained, or rotating hinge prostheses, Vasso and colleagues²⁷ examined functional outcomes at a median follow-up of 9 years (range, 4-12 years). At most recent follow-up, mean International Knee Society (IKS) Knee and Function scores were 81 (range, 48-97) and 79 (range, 56-92), mean Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS) score was 84 (range, 62-98), and mean range of motion (ROM) was 121° (range, 98°-132°) (P < .001). Although there were no significant differences in IKS and HSS scores between prosthesis types, ROM was significantly (P < .01) wider in the posterior stabilized group than in the condylar constrained and rotating hinge groups (127° vs 112° and 108°), suggesting increasing constraint resulted in decreased ROM. Several studies have found increasing constraint might lead to reduced function.^28-30

However, Hwang and colleagues³¹ evaluated functional outcomes in 36 revision TKAs and noted that the cemented posterior stabilized (n = 8), condylar constrained (n = 25), and rotating hinge (n = 13) prostheses used did not differ in their mean Knee Society scores (78, 81, and 83, respectively).

There remains a marked disparity in patient limitations seen after revision versus primary TKA. Given the positive results being obtained with newer implants, studies might suggest recent generations of prostheses have allowed designs to be comparable. As design development continues, we may come closer to achieving outcomes comparable to those of primary TKA.

3. Patient satisfaction

Several recent reports have shown that 10% to 25% of patients who underwent primary TKA were dissatisfied with their surgery^30,32; other studies have found patient satisfaction often correlating to function and pain.^33-35 Given the worse outcomes for revision TKA (outlined in the preceding section), the substantial pain accompanying a second, more complex procedure, and the extensive rehabilitation expected, we suspect patients who undergo revision TKA are even less satisfied with their surgery than their primary counterparts are. (See Appendix 4 for a complete list of studies of patient satisfaction after revision TKA.)

Barrack and colleagues³² evaluated a consecutive series of 238 patients followed up for at least 1 year after revision TKA. Patients were asked to rate their degree of satisfaction with both their primary procedure and the revision and to indicate their expectations regarding their revision prosthesis. Mean satisfaction score was 7.4 (maximum = 10), with 13% of patients dissatisfied, 18% somewhat satisfied, and 69% satisfied. Seventy-four percent of patients expected their revision prosthesis to last longer than the primary prosthesis.

Greidanus and colleagues³⁶ evaluated patient satisfaction in 60 revision TKA cases and 199 primary TKA cases at 2-year follow-up. The primary TKA group had significantly (P < .01) higher satisfaction scores in a comparison with the revision TKA group: Global (86 vs 73), Pain Relief (88 vs 70), Function (83 vs 67), and Recreation (77 vs 62). These findings support the satisfaction rates reported by Dahm and colleagues^33,34: 91% for primary TKA patients and 77% for revision TKA patients.

4. Quality of life

Procedure complexity leads to reduced survivorship, function, and mobility, longer rehabilitation, and decreased QOL for revision TKA patients relative to primary TKA patients.³⁷ (See Appendix 5 for a complete list of studies of QOL outcomes of revision TKA.)

Greidanus and colleagues³⁶ evaluated joint-specific QOL (using the 12-item Oxford Knee Score; OKS) and generic QOL (using the 12-Item Short Form Health Survey; SF-12) in 60 revision TKA cases and 199 primary TKA cases at a mean follow-up of 2 years. (The OKS survey is used to evaluate patient perspectives on TKA outcomes,³⁸ and the multipurpose SF-12 questionnaire is used to assess mental and physical function and general health-related QOL.³⁹) Compared with the revision TKA group, the primary TKA group had significantly higher OKS after surgery (78 vs 68; P = .01) as well as significantly higher SF-12 scores: Global (84 vs 72; P = .01), Mental (54 vs 50; P = .03), and Physical (43 vs 37; P = .01). Similarly, Ghomrawi and colleagues⁴⁰ evaluated patterns of improvement in 308 patients (318 knees) who had revision TKA. At 24-month follow-up, mean SF-36 Physical and Mental scores were 35 and 52, respectively.

Deehan and colleagues⁴¹ used the Nottingham Health Profile (NHP) to compare 94 patients’ health-related QOL scores before revision TKA with their scores 3 months, 1 year, and 5 years after revision. NHP Pain subscale scores were significantly lower 3 and 12 months after surgery than before surgery, but this difference was no longer seen at the 5-year follow-up. There was no significant improvement in scores on the other 5 NHP subscales (Sleep, Energy, Emotion, Mobility, Social Isolation) at any time points.

As shown in the literature, patients’ QOL outcomes improve after revision TKA, but these gains are not at the level of patients who undergo primary TKA.^36,41 Given that revision surgery is more extensive, and that perhaps revision patients have poorer muscle function, they usually do not return to the level they attained after their index procedure.

5. Economic impact

Consistent with the outcomes already described, the economic impact of revision TKAs is excess expenditures and costs to patients and health care institutions.⁴² The sources of this impact are higher implant costs, extra operative trays and times, longer hospital stays, more rehabilitation, and increased medication use.⁴³ Revision TKA costs range from $49,000 to more than $100,000—a tremendous increase over primary TKA costs ($25,000-$30,000).^43-45 Furthermore, the annual economic burden associated with revision TKA, now $2.7 billion, is expected to exceed $13 billion by 2030.⁴⁶ In the United States, about $23.2 billion will be spent on 926,527 primary TKAs in 2015; significantly, the costs associated with revising just 10% of these cases account for almost 50% of the total cost of the primary procedures.⁴⁶

In a retrospective cost-identification multicenter cohort study, Bozic and colleagues⁴⁷ found that both-component and single-component revisions, compared with primary procedures, were associated with significantly increased operative time (~265 and 221 minutes vs 200 minutes), use of allograft bone (23% and 14% vs 1%), length of stay (5.4 and 5.7 days vs 5.0 days), and percentage of patients discharged to extended-care facilities (26% and 26% vs 25%) (P < .0001). Hospital costs for both- and single-component revisions were 138% and 114% higher than costs for primary procedures (P < .0001). More recently, Kallala and colleagues⁴⁴ analyzed UK National Health Service data and compared the costs of revision for infection with revision for other causes (pain, instability, aseptic loosening, fracture). Mean length of stay associated with revision for infection (21.5 days) was more than double that associated with revision for aseptic loosening (9.5 days; P < .0001), and mean cost of revision for septic causes (£30,011) was more than 3 times that of revision for other causes (£9655; P < .0001). The authors concluded that the higher costs of revision knee surgery have a considerable economic impact, especially in infection cases.

With more extensive procedures, long-stem or more constrained prostheses are often needed to obtain adequate fixation and stability. The resulting increased, substantial economic burden is felt by patients and the health care system. Given that health care reimbursements are declining, hospitals that perform revision TKAs can sustain marked financial losses. Some centers are asking whether it is cost-effective to continue to perform these types of procedures. We must find new ways to provide revision procedures using less costly implants and tools so that centers will continue to make these procedures available to patients.

Conclusion

Given the exponential growth in primary TKAs, there will be a concordant increase in revision TKAs in the decades to come. This review provides a concise overview of revision TKA outcomes. Given the low level of evidence regarding revision TKAs, we need further higher quality studies of their prostheses and outcomes. Specifically, we need systematic reviews and meta-analyses to provide higher quality evidence regarding outcomes of using individual prosthetic designs.