Failure of total knee arthroplasty with or without patella resurfacing

Patients and methods 5 prosthesis brands in common use with and without patella resurfacing from 1994 through 2009 were included n == 11,887. The median follow-up times were 9 years for patella-resurfaced implants and 7 years for implants without patella resurfacing. For comparison of prosthesis brands, also brands in common use with only one of the two treatment options were included in the study population (n == 25,590). Cox regression analyses were performed with different reasons for revision as endpoints with adjustment for potential confounders. Results We observed a reduced overall risk of revision for patella resurfaced (PR) TKAs, but the statistical significance was borderline (RR == 0.84, p == 0.05). At 15 years, 92% of PR and 91% of patella non resurfaced (NR) prostheses were still unrevised. However, PR implants had a lower risk of revision due to pain alone (RR == 0.1, p < 0.001), but a higher risk of revision due to loosening of the tibial component (RR == 1.4, p == 0.03) and due to a defective polyethylene insert (RR == 3.2, p < 0.001). At 10 years, the survival for the reference NR brand AGC Universal was 93%. The NR brands Genesis I, Duracon, and Tricon (RR == 1.4--1.7) performed statistically significantly worse than NR AGC Universal, while the NR prostheses e.motion, Profix, and AGC Anatomic (RR == 0.1--0.7), and the PR prostheses NexGen and AGC Universal (RR == 0.4--0.5) performed statistically significantly better. LCS, NexGen, LCS Complete (all NR), and Tricon, Genesis I, LCS, and Kinemax (all PR) showed no differences in this respect from the reference brand. A lower risk of revision (crude) was found for TKAs performed after 2000 as compared to those performed earlier (RR == 0.8, p == 0.001). Interpretation Although revision risk was similar for PR and NR TKAs, we found important differences in reasons for revision. Our results also indicate that survivorship of TKAs has improved.