Recovery patterns in patients undergoing revision surgery of the primary knee prosthesis.

Autor: Liu WY; Department of Orthopaedic Surgery & Trauma, Catharina Hospital, P.O. box 1350, 5602 ZA, Eindhoven, the Netherlands. wai-yan.liu@catharinaziekenhuis.nl.; Department of Orthopaedic Surgery & Trauma, Máxima MC, Eindhoven, the Netherlands. wai-yan.liu@catharinaziekenhuis.nl., van der Steen MC; Department of Orthopaedic Surgery & Trauma, Catharina Hospital, P.O. box 1350, 5602 ZA, Eindhoven, the Netherlands., van Wensen RJA; Department of Orthopaedic Surgery & Trauma, Catharina Hospital, P.O. box 1350, 5602 ZA, Eindhoven, the Netherlands., van Kempen RWTM; Department of Orthopaedic Surgery & Trauma, Catharina Hospital, P.O. box 1350, 5602 ZA, Eindhoven, the Netherlands.
Jazyk: angličtina
Zdroj: Journal of experimental orthopaedics [J Exp Orthop] 2021 Dec 16; Vol. 8 (1), pp. 117. Date of Electronic Publication: 2021 Dec 16.
DOI: 10.1186/s40634-021-00436-w
Abstrakt: Purpose: Despite good survival rates of revised knee prostheses, little is known about recovery trajectories within the first 12 months after surgery. This retrospective observational study explored recovery trajectories in terms of pain, function and quality of life in patients after revision knee arthroplasty over 12 months.
Methods: Eighty-eight revision knee arthroplasty patients rated changes in daily physical functioning using the anchor question (0: very much worsened; 7: very much improved). Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) of pain (range 0-10), function (Oxford Knee Score) and quality of life (EQ-5D-3L) were assessed preoperatively, at 3 and 12 months postoperatively. Four recovery trajectories were identified using the anchor question at 3 and 12 months postoperatively: no improvement, late improvement, early improvement, and prolonged improvement. Repeated measures ANOVA was conducted with recovery trajectories as dependent variable and PROM assessments as independent variables.
Results: Sixty percent reported improvement in daily physical functioning at 12 months postoperatively. Age and reason for revision differed between groups. Pain, function and EQ-5D-3L differed between groups over time. Late and prolonged improvement groups improved on all PROMs at 12 months. The early improvement group did not report improvement in daily physical functioning at 12 months, while improvements in function and pain during activity were observed.
Conclusions: Different recovery trajectories seem to exist and mostly match PROMs scores over time. Not all patients may experience beneficial outcome of revision knee arthroplasty. These findings are of importance to provide appropriate information on possible recovery trajectories after revision knee arthroplasty to patients.
Level of Evidence: III.
(© 2021. The Author(s).)
Databáze: MEDLINE
Externí odkaz: