Acta orthopaedica · 2026
The long-term revision risk of RSA-tested and non-RSA-tested TKA implants in The Netherlands: a Dutch arthroplasty register study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Van der Lelij Thies J N, Pijls Bart G, Kaptein Bart L, Van Steenbergen Liza N, Nelissen Rob G H H, Marang-van de Mheen Perla J
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Radiostereometric analysis (RSA) of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is used as an early safeguard during the phased evidence-based introduction of new implants. The goal of our study was to compare the long-term revision risk between RSA-tested implants and non-RSA-tested implants in the Netherlands using patient-level data.
METHODS: All primary TKAs between 2007 and 2016 from the Dutch Arthroplasty Register were included, and procedures with an RSA-tested implant were identified. Both all-cause major revision risk and revision risk because of loosening were calculated at 5 and 10 years postoperatively using Kaplan-Meier analyses. Sensitivity analyses were performed with stricter definitions of implant characteristics to classify procedures as RSA-tested, to avoid camouflage of different subdesigns within the same brand implant portfolio.
RESULTS: 83,638 RSA-tested and 104,105 non-RSA-tested TKAs were included. Cumulative all-cause major revision percentages for the RSA-tested group at 5 and 10 years were 2.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.1-2.3) and 3.6% (CI 3.4-3.7), respectively, compared with 2.5% (CI 2.4-2.6) and 3.3% (CI 3.2-3.4) for the non-RSA-tested group. RSA-tested TKAs showed higher 10-year revision risks because of loosening than non-RSA-tested procedures (1.8%, CI 1.7-1.9 vs 1.4%, CI 1.3-1.4, respectively). Comparable results were found after stratification by various patient characteristics and with stricter classification approaches.
CONCLUSION: Regarding all-cause revision risk, RSA-tested TKAs had a slightly lower risk at 5 years. However, at 10 years the RSA-tested TKAs had a higher all-cause revision risk and higher revision risk because of loosening compared with the non-RSA-tested TKAs.
METHODS: All primary TKAs between 2007 and 2016 from the Dutch Arthroplasty Register were included, and procedures with an RSA-tested implant were identified. Both all-cause major revision risk and revision risk because of loosening were calculated at 5 and 10 years postoperatively using Kaplan-Meier analyses. Sensitivity analyses were performed with stricter definitions of implant characteristics to classify procedures as RSA-tested, to avoid camouflage of different subdesigns within the same brand implant portfolio.
RESULTS: 83,638 RSA-tested and 104,105 non-RSA-tested TKAs were included. Cumulative all-cause major revision percentages for the RSA-tested group at 5 and 10 years were 2.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.1-2.3) and 3.6% (CI 3.4-3.7), respectively, compared with 2.5% (CI 2.4-2.6) and 3.3% (CI 3.2-3.4) for the non-RSA-tested group. RSA-tested TKAs showed higher 10-year revision risks because of loosening than non-RSA-tested procedures (1.8%, CI 1.7-1.9 vs 1.4%, CI 1.3-1.4, respectively). Comparable results were found after stratification by various patient characteristics and with stricter classification approaches.
CONCLUSION: Regarding all-cause revision risk, RSA-tested TKAs had a slightly lower risk at 5 years. However, at 10 years the RSA-tested TKAs had a higher all-cause revision risk and higher revision risk because of loosening compared with the non-RSA-tested TKAs.