Current medical research and opinion · 2026
Clinical and healthcare resource utilization outcomes following revision knee arthroplasty with and without a gradually reducing radius revision knee system.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Smith Eric L, Gupta Anshu, Vazquez Vanessa, Ruppenkamp Jill, Jamgochian Grant, Diaz Rodrigo
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: This study examines outcomes and resource utilization of rTKA with a gradually reducing radius knee implant (GRRK) compared to all other revision knee implants.
METHODS: This study utilized the Premier Healthcare Database to analyze patients who underwent a single-stage revision with GRRK vs. all other revision implants from January 1, 2017, to October 31, 2024. Study variables included patient and hospital demographics and procedural characteristics. The primary endpoint was knee-related readmission rate within 90 days. Secondary outcomes included surgical time, length of stay and discharge status. Propensity score fine stratification was utilized for covariate balancing, followed by analysis through generalized linear models.
RESULTS: 43,072 rTKAs were analyzed (2,203 for GRRK and 40,869 for all other revision implants) between January 2017 and October 2024. At 90-day follow-up, there were significantly lower knee-related readmissions for GRRK compared to all other revision implants (4.07% vs. 6.41%), with a mean difference of -2.35% (95 CI %: -3.23% to -1.47%, p < 0.001). At 30-day (2.08% vs. 2.94%) and 365-day (9.01% vs. 12.82%) follow-up, knee-related readmissions were also lower. All-cause readmission rates were also lower during the 30-, 90-, and 365-day follow-up period for GRRK compared to all other revision implants. Patients undergoing revision surgery with GRRK had higher rates of discharge to home (83.48% vs. 80.85%) and had shorter average surgical time (191 vs. 200 min) compared to other revision implants.
CONCLUSIONS: GRRK was associated with significantly lower 90-day knee-related readmissions versus other revision implants, supporting its use in revision knee arthroplasty and future research to improve outcomes and resource use.
METHODS: This study utilized the Premier Healthcare Database to analyze patients who underwent a single-stage revision with GRRK vs. all other revision implants from January 1, 2017, to October 31, 2024. Study variables included patient and hospital demographics and procedural characteristics. The primary endpoint was knee-related readmission rate within 90 days. Secondary outcomes included surgical time, length of stay and discharge status. Propensity score fine stratification was utilized for covariate balancing, followed by analysis through generalized linear models.
RESULTS: 43,072 rTKAs were analyzed (2,203 for GRRK and 40,869 for all other revision implants) between January 2017 and October 2024. At 90-day follow-up, there were significantly lower knee-related readmissions for GRRK compared to all other revision implants (4.07% vs. 6.41%), with a mean difference of -2.35% (95 CI %: -3.23% to -1.47%, p < 0.001). At 30-day (2.08% vs. 2.94%) and 365-day (9.01% vs. 12.82%) follow-up, knee-related readmissions were also lower. All-cause readmission rates were also lower during the 30-, 90-, and 365-day follow-up period for GRRK compared to all other revision implants. Patients undergoing revision surgery with GRRK had higher rates of discharge to home (83.48% vs. 80.85%) and had shorter average surgical time (191 vs. 200 min) compared to other revision implants.
CONCLUSIONS: GRRK was associated with significantly lower 90-day knee-related readmissions versus other revision implants, supporting its use in revision knee arthroplasty and future research to improve outcomes and resource use.