"Pain without loosening"-revisions of knee arthroplasties in the Danish Knee Arthroplasty Register.

INTRODUCTION: We aimed to investigate "pain without loosening" as an indication for knee arthroplasty revisions and to screen for other indications potentially hidden in this category to improve future registration and enhance data quality in the Danish Knee Arthroplasty Register. METHODS: We included 104 patients undergoing revision knee arthroplasty for the indication "pain without loosening" from 1 January 2016 to 31 December 2018 at five Danish centres. Medical records, radiographs and computed tomographies were reviewed. RESULTS: In 103 of 104 cases, we confirmed "pain without loosening" as an indication for revision. We found hidden indications in 44 cases; malposition of components (n = 19), stiffness (n = 13), progression of arthrosis (n = 6), instability (n = 3), liner dislocation (n = 1), residual cement (n = 1) and aseptic loosening (n = 1). The Kellgren-Lawrence arthrosis grades prior to primary knee arthroplasty were 1-2 (31%) and 3-4 (69%). CONCLUSIONS: The indication "pain without loosening" covered patients revised due to pain, but other hidden indications were also present. Stiffness and malposition of components were hidden indications and these are not provided as indication options in the DKR and other registers. The relatively high frequency of arthrosis grade 1-2 prior to primary knee arthroplasty is concerning and may explain the occurrence of knee pain without any other pathology present. FUNDING: The Danish Rheumatism Association, the Region of Southern Denmark, the Research Fund of Region Zeeland and Region of Southern Denmark, and the University of Southern Denmark. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not relevant.

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

PURPOSE: Does 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?". METHODS: 104 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. RESULTS: The 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). CONCLUSION: Patients 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 EVIDENCE: Level III.

Patient-Reported Outcomes and Satisfaction 1 to 3 Years After Revisions of Total Knee Arthroplasties for Unexplained Pain Versus Aseptic Loosening.

BACKGROUND: It is unknown if patients are relieved of pain after knee arthroplasty revision for unexplained pain. The aim of this cross-sectional case-control study was to compare patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and satisfaction 1 to 3 years after revision of total knee arthroplasties (TKAs) for the indications of unexplained pain versus aseptic loosening. METHODS: We included 384 patients undergoing TKA revision for the indications of unexplained pain and aseptic loosening from January 1, 2018 to December 31, 2020 from the Danish Knee Arthroplasty Register. A total of 81 patients were revised for unexplained pain and 303 for aseptic loosening. Questionnaires including PROMs (Oxford Knee Score, EQ-5D-5L, and Forgotten Joint Score) and satisfaction with the surgery on a 0-100 scale (100 = not satisfied; 0 = very satisfied) were sent to digitally secured mailboxes. Time from revision to data collection was a median 3.1 years (range, 1.4-4.4 years). RESULTS: Median Oxford Knee Score was 25 (interquartile range [IQR] 15) versus 31 (IQR 18) 1-3 years after revisions for unexplained pain versus aseptic loosening, P = .009. Median EQ-5D-5L was 0.6 (IQR 0.4) versus 0.8 (IQR 0.3) for unexplained pain versus aseptic loosening, P = .009. Median Forgotten Joint Score was 50 (IQR 7) versus 50 (IQR 16) for unexplained pain versus aseptic loosening, P = .905. Satisfaction was 75 (IQR 38) for unexplained pain and 50 (IQR 73) for aseptic loosening, P < .001. CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing TKA revision for the indication of unexplained pain had worse results on PROMs than those revised for aseptic loosening. Likewise, patients revised for unexplained pain were less satisfied compared to patients revised for aseptic loosening. This information is valuable to both surgeons and patients when candidates for revision surgery are selected, to obtain the best possible outcomes.

Opioid and Analgesic Use Before and After Revision Knee Arthroplasty for the Indications "Pain Without Loosening" Versus "Aseptic Loosening" - A Danish Nationwide Study.

BACKGROUND: It is uncertain if patients undergoing revision knee arthroplasty for "pain without loosening" are relieved of pain. This study aimed to compare pre- and postoperative analgesic consumption by patients undergoing revision for "pain without loosening" versus "aseptic loosening" and to determine predictors for postoperative long-term opioid use. METHODS: A retrospective nationwide study of 1,037 revisions for "pain without loosening" and 2,317 revisions for "aseptic loosening" during 1997-2018 from the Danish Knee Arthroplasty Register was carried out. Analgesic use was defined by prescription reimbursement, and long-term opioid use by prescription reimbursement in 4 consecutive quarters. RESULTS: In the preoperative year, 37% and 29% of patients revised for "pain without loosening" and "aseptic loosening" were opioid users compared to 32% and 30% in the postoperative year. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) use was significantly lower postoperatively for both indications (35% versus 28% for "pain without loosening" and 33% versus 25% for "aseptic loosening"). Use of other analgesics was unchanged. Long-term opioid use increased postoperatively by 4% for patients with "pain without loosening" (P = .029) and by 3% for "aseptic loosening" (P = .003). New long-term opioid users (without preoperative long-term use) were 9% for "pain without loosening" and 8% for "aseptic loosening". Predictors of new long-term opioid use were other opioid-requiring diagnoses or procedures within the first postoperative year, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) ≥3, and preoperative long-term NSAID use. CONCLUSION: The consumption of opioids decreased slightly after knee arthroplasty revision for the indication "pain without loosening", but not for "aseptic loosening". The amount of new long-term opioid users increased for both indications.

Prosthesis survival after revision knee arthroplasty for "pain without loosening" versus "aseptic loosening": a Danish nationwide study.

Background and purpose - Patients having a knee arthroplasty revision for the indication "pain without loosening" may have a higher risk of re-revisions than patients revised for other indications. The primary aim of this study was to compare the survival of knee arthroplasties revised for "pain without loosening" compared with "aseptic loosening." The second was to investigate the prosthesis survival rates in 3 surgical subgroups (total knee arthroplasty (TKA)-TKA; partial revision (revision of tibial or femoral component); unicompartmental knee arthroplasty-TKA) and to compare the prosthesis survival rates for 1997-2009 and 2010-2018. Patients and methods - 4,299 revisions were identified in the period 1997-2018 from the Danish Knee Arthroplasty Register. Of these, 1,111 (26%) were performed due to "pain without loosening" without any other indications, 674 (16%) due to "pain without loosening" combined with other indications, and 2,514 (59%) due to "aseptic loosening". Survival analysis was performed by a Cox multivariate analysis and Kaplan-Meier curves were presented. Results - The cumulated proportions of re-revision after 2, 5, and 20 years were 12% (95% CI 10-14), 18% (CI 16-20), and 23% (CI 20-25) for "pain without loosening" versus 11% (CI 9.3-12), 16% (CI 14-17), and 19% (CI 18-21) for "aseptic loosening." There were no statistically significant differences between the 2 indications in repeated analyses for each of the surgical subgroups. The hazard ratio for re-revision comparing "pain without loosening" with "aseptic loosening" was 1.03 (CI 0.87-1.2). The 8-year risk of re-revision for "pain without loosening" was 22% (CI 19-26) versus 22% (CI 20-25) for "aseptic loosening" in the period from 1997-2009, and 18% (CI 15-22) versus 14% (CI 13-16) in the period from 2010-2018. Interpretation - The risk of re-revision was similar for patients having a knee arthroplasty revision for the indication "pain without loosening" compared with "aseptic loosening." However, we observed a slight improvement of prosthesis survival rates after revisions for both indications from 1997-2009 to 2010-2018. We cannot recommend for or against revision in cases with "pain without loosening" based on these data alone.

Impact of compression stockings on wound healing and complications in ankle fractures: A retrospective cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Ankle fractures treated with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) have a high incidence of wound complications. By reducing oedema, wound complications can, in theory, be minimized. This study investigates the impact of compression stocking (CS) on such complications after treatment with ORIF. METHODS: Compression stockings were introduced as a standard postoperative treatment for all ankle fracture patients treated operatively with ORIF on February 1, 2013. Data were retrieved from medical records two years prior to and following the introduction date. The primary outcome was wound healing status after six weeks and secondary outcomes were wound-healing and major complications up to one year after surgery. RESULTS: In total, 187 patients were studied, 74 in the CS group and 113 in the control (non-CS) group. Six weeks after the operation, wound-healing problems occurred in 23% and 13% of the patients in the CS group and the non-CS group (p < 0.0001) respectively. In total, 34% and 19% of the patients in the CS group and non-CS group experienced wound-healing complications one year after the operation (p < 0.02) respectively. Furthermore, major complications within one year occurred in 3% and 4% of patients respectively (p < 0.77). CONCLUSION: An increase in wound-healing complications after six weeks and one year when using CS was found. However, owing to baseline differences in the two groups, it is only possible to caution against the use of CS.