Periprosthetic Joint Infection Does Not Preclude Good Outcomes after a Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty: A 7-Year Follow-Up Study of 144 Retrospective Cases
Table 1
Characteristics of the study groups.
Aseptic revision
Septic revision
P-value
(n = 90)
(n = 54)
Mean ± SD
Mean ± SD
Age (years)
69.1 (50–83)
67.2 (50–80)
0.095
Female gender
85 (94.4%)
39 (72.2%)
<0.001
Body mass index (kg/m2)
28.0 ± 4.4
25.9 ± 3.6
0.007
Average polyethylene thickness (mm)
16.6 ± 3.29
16.2 ± 3.3
0.621
Varus-valgus constrained implant
61 (67.8%)
50 (92.6%)
<0.001
Surgical approach
Standard parapatellar approach
64 (71.1%)
26 (48.1%)
0.008
Extensive approach
26 (28.9%)
28 (51.9%)
Bone defect
Grade 1 / 2 / 3 femoral bone defect
30 / 55 / 5
4 / 37 / 13
<0.001
Grade 1 / 2 / 3 tibial bone defect
32 / 53 / 5
20 / 27 / 7
0.256
Average number of surgeries
1.01
2.7
<0.001
Wound complications
1 case
6 cases
0.011
Average time interval between primary and revision surgery (months)
127 ± 35
53 ± 28
<0.001
Values are means ± standard deviations or percentages. Two-stage revision, 30 cases; three- or four-stage revision, 24 cases.
