Abstract
The work evaluates a group of patients monitored in the period from January 2007 to December 2016, 50 patients underwent revision surgery for aseptic loosening and 24 patients for deep infection. In the case of revision surgery for aseptic release, the original sterilized components were used as spacers in 18 patients, and an articulating cement spacer was used in 6 patients.
Only complications leading to another revision were included in the statistics. A total of 13 patients underwent primary implantation in another center.
The number of revisions and the reason for implant failure were monitored. The results were compared with the frequency of revision surgeries after primary total knee arthroplasty, of which 2,436 were performed in the given period.
The results clearly show a marked increase in the frequency of complications in revision surgery compared to primary surgery. Compared to primary implants, subsequent revision after revision implantation for aseptic release was required three times more often, after two-stage revision implantation for infection it was ten times more frequent.
Infection in the case of primary and revision intervention can be considered the most problematic complication. It is clear that aseptic loosening of the primary implant usually occurs later (median 11 years) than the development of deep infection (median 2 years).