This Article Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Squires, B. Articles by Newman, J. H. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Squires, B. Articles by Newman, J. H.

WHY DO KNEE ARTHROPLASTIES FAIL?

15 Fremantle Road, Cotham, Bristol BS6 5SY

The aim of this study was to examine causes of the failed knee arthroplasty.

Since 1980 the Bristol Knee Replacement Registry has prospectively recorded data on 3024 patients. Complete original and 5 year follow up data was available on 999 knees.

The surgery was judged a failure if there was no improvement in the American Knee Society score at 5 years or if there had been a revision within that time.

The prosthesis used was Kinematic in 471 knees, the Medial Unicompartmental Sled in 258 knees, the Kinemax Plus in 134 knees and a variety of other designs.

At 5 years, 79 (7. 9%) either showed no improvement in the American Knee Society score or had been revised. The failure rate was 7% for the Kinematic, 7% for the medial Sled and 5% for the Kinemax Plus. 20% of the less frequently used designs failed.

Five (0. 5%) knee replacements failed because of infection. 22 knees (2. 2%) had significant comorbidity that precluded a satisfactory functional outcome. For 7 knees (0. 7%), the patient exhibited patterns of abnormal illness behaviour that were thought to explain the poor outcome. A further 27 knees (2. 7%) failed because of technical errors either at the time of surgery (13 cases, 1. 3%), or in selecting a prosthesis which failed prematurely (14 cases 1. 4%). No cause for failure could be identified in 12 cases (1. 2%).

The high failure rate amongst infrequently used prosthesis emphasises the need to use established designs. No cause for failure could be identified in 12 cases and 5 were due to infection; such cases are hard to avoid. This study shows the importance of assessing both the overall physical and psychological state of the patient if disappointing results are to be avoided. The most frequent cause of an unsatisfactory outcome was a technical one, which should be avoidable.

The abstracts were prepared by Mr Simon Donell. Correspondence should be addressed to him at the Department of Orthopaedics, Norfolk & Norwich Hospital, Level 4, Centre Block, Colney Lane, Norwich NR4 7UY, United Kingdom