Abstract:Background: The ability to identify which patients are at a greater risk of early revision knee arthroplasty has important practical and resource implications. Many international arthroplasty registries administer patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to provide a holistic assessment of pain, function, and quality of life. However, few PROM scores have been evaluated as potential indicators of early revision knee arthroplasty, and earlier studies have largely focused on knee-specific measures. Questions/purposes: This national registry-based study asked: (1) Which 6-month postoperative knee-specific and generic PROM scores are associated with early revision knee arthroplasty (defined as revision surgery performed 6 to 24 months after the primary procedure)? (2) Is a clinically important improvement in PROM scores (based on thresholds for the minimal important change) after primary knee arthroplasty associated with a lower risk of early revision? Methods: Preoperative and 6-month postoperative PROM scores for patients undergoing primary knee arthroplasty were sourced from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) and Arthroplasty Clinical Outcomes Registry National. Between January 2013 and December 2020, PROM data were available for 19,402 primary total knee arthroplasties; these data were linked to AOANJRR data on revision knee arthroplasty. Of these, 3448 procedures were excluded because they did not have 6-month PROM data, they had not reached the 6-month postoperative point, they had died before 24 months, or they had received revision knee arthroplasty before the 6-month PROMs assessment. After these exclusions, data were analyzed for 15,954 primary knee arthroplasties. Associations between knee-specific (knee pain, Oxford Knee Score, and 12-item Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score [KOOS-12]) or generic PROM scores (5-level EuroQol quality of life instrument [EQ-5D], EQ VAS, perceived change, and satisfaction) and revision surgery were explored using t-tests, chi-square tests, and regression models. Ninety-four revision procedures were performed at 6 to 24 months, most commonly for infection (39% [37 procedures]). The early revision group was younger than the unrevised group (mean age 64 years versus 68 years) and a between-group difference in American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade was noted. Apart from a small difference in preoperative low back pain for the early revision group (mean low back pain VAS 4.2 points for the early revision group versus 3.3 points for the unrevised group), there were no between-group differences in preoperative knee-specific or generic PROM scores on univariate analysis. As the inclusion of ASA grade or low back pain score did not alter the model results, the final multivariable model included only the most clinically plausible confounders (age and gender) as covariates. Multivariable models (adjusting for age and gender) were also used to examine the association between a clinically important improvement in PROM scores (based on published thresholds for minimal important change) and the likelihood of early revision. Results: After adjusting for age and gender, poor postoperative knee pain, Oxford, KOOS-12, EQ-5D, and EQ VAS scores were all associated with early revision. A one-unit increase (worsening) in knee pain at 6 months was associated with a 31% increase in the likelihood of revision (RR 1.31 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.19 to 1.43]; p < 0.001). Reflecting the reversed scoring direction, a one-unit increase (improvement) in Oxford or KOOS-12 score was associated with a 9% and 5% reduction in revision risk, respectively (RR for Oxford: 0.91 [95% CI 0.90 to 0.93]; p < 0.001; RR for KOOS-12 summary: 0.95 [95% CI 0.94 to 0.97]; p < 0.001). Patient dissatisfaction (RR 6.8 [95% CI 3.7 to 12.3]) and patient-perceived worsening (RR 11.7 [95% CI 7.4 to 18.5]) at 6 months were also associated with an increased likelihood of early revision. After adjusting for age and gender, patients who did not achieve a clinically important improvement in PROM scores had a higher risk of early revision (RR 2.9 for the knee pain VAS, RR 4.2 for the Oxford Knee Score, RR 6.3 to 8.6 for KOOS-12, and RR 2.3 for EQ-5D) compared with those who did (reference group). Conclusion: Knee-specific and generic PROM scores offer an efficient approach to identifying patients at greater risk of early revision surgery, using either the 6-month score or the magnitude of improvement. These data indicate that surgeons can use single- and multi-item measures to detect a patient-perceived unsuccessful surgical outcome at 6 months after primary knee arthroplasty. Surgeons should be alert to poor PROM scores at 6 months or small improvements in scores (for example, less than 2 points for knee pain VAS or less than 10.5 points for Oxford Knee Score), which signal a need for direct patient follow-up or expedited clinical review. Level of evidence: Level III, therapeutic study.

Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty Achieves Minimal Clinically Important Difference Faster than Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty

Comparing Rates of Minimal Clinically Important Difference Between Manual and Robotic-Assisted Total Knee Arthroplasty

Comparison of Time and Rate of Achieving Minimal Clinically Important Difference: Robotic Versus Manual Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty

Robotic-Assisted Total Knee Arthroplasty Results in Shorter Navigation Working Time With Similar Clinical Outcomes Compared to Computer-Navigated Total Knee Arthroplasty

Higher satisfaction and function scores in restricted kinematic alignment versus mechanical alignment with medial pivot design total knee arthroplasty: A prospective randomised controlled trial

Patient-Reported Functional and Satisfaction Outcomes after Robotic-Arm-Assisted Total Knee Arthroplasty: Early Results of a Prospective Multicenter Investigation

Outcomes and Survivorships of Total Knee Arthroplasty Comparing Resurfaced and Unresurfaced Patellae

Postoperative Complications and Readmission Rates in Robotic-Assisted Versus Manual Total Knee Arthroplasty: Large, Propensity Score–Matched Patient Cohorts

Is Conversion TKA a Primary or Revision? Clinical Course and Complication Risks Approximating Revision TKA Rather Than Primary TKA

Patients undergoing robotic arm-assisted total knee arthroplasty have a greater improvement in knee-specific pain but not in function

Early Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes of Robot‐Assisted Versus Conventional Manual Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Randomized Controlled Study

A Pilot Clinical Trial

One-Year Patient Outcomes for Robotic-Arm-Assisted versus Manual Total Knee Arthroplasty

Mid-term outcomes of a kinematically designed cruciate retaining total knee arthroplasty

Lower Perioperative Complication Rates and Shorter Lengths of Hospital Stay Associated With Technology-Assisted Total Knee Arthroplasty Versus Conventional Instrumentation in Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty

The Minimally Clinically Important Difference and Substantial Clinical Benefit in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Time-to-Achievement Analysis

No Discernible Difference in Revision Rate or Survivorship Between Posterior Cruciate-Retaining and Posterior Cruciate-Substituting TKA

Poor Knee-specific and Generic Patient-reported Outcome Measure Scores at 6 Months Are Associated With Early Revision Knee Arthroplasty: A Study From the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry

Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty With an Imageless, Second-Generation Robotic System

Robotic-arm assisted total knee arthroplasty is associated with improved accuracy and patient reported outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Racial Disparities in Rates of Revision and use of Modern Features in Total Knee Arthroplasty, a National Registry Study