Is Conversion TKA a Primary or Revision? Clinical Course and Complication Risks Approximating Revision TKA Rather Than Primary TKA.
Academic Article
Overview
abstract
BACKGROUND: Conversion total knee arthroplasty (convTKA) is associated with increased resource utilization and costs compared with primary TKA. The purpose of this study is to compare 1) surgical time, 2) hospitalization length (LOS), 3) complications, 4) infection, and 5) readmissions in patients undergoing convTKA to both primary TKA and revision TKA patients. METHODS: The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Project database was queried from 2008 to 2018. Patients undergoing convTKA (n = 1,665, 0.5%) were defined by selecting Current Procedural Terminology codes 27,447 and 20,680. We compared the outcomes of interest to patients undergoing primary TKA (n = 348,624) and to patients undergoing aseptic revision TKA (n = 8213). Univariate and multivariate logistic regression was performed to identify the relative risk of postoperative complications. RESULTS: Compared with patients undergoing primary TKA, convTKA patients were younger (P < .001), had lower body mass index (P < .001), and were less likely to be American Society of Anesthesiologist class III/IV (P < .001). These patients had significantly longer operative times (122.6 vs 90.3 min, P < .001), increased LOS (P < .001), increased risks for any complication (OR 1.94), surgical site infection (OR 1.84), reoperation (OR 2.18), and readmissions (OR 1.60) after controlling for confounders. Compared with aseptic TKA revisions, operative times were shorter (122.6 vs 148.2 min, P < .001), but LOS (2.91 vs 2.95 days, P = .698) was similar. Furthermore, relative risk for any complication (P = .350), surgical site infection (P = .964), reoperation (P = .296), and readmissions (P = .844) did not differ. CONCLUSION: Conversion TKA procedures share more similarities with revision TKA rather than primary TKA procedures. Without a distinct procedural and diagnosis-related group, there are financial disincentives to care for these complex patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.
