Table 3.
Results for revision rate
| Author | Journal | Year | Age (years) | Number | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Difference | |||||
| Jorgensen [24] | J Bone Joint Surg Am | 2019 |
< 55, 55–64, 65–74, ≥ 75 |
478,081 | The MAR at 15 years was 3.0% (2.8–3.2%). Age had a significant effect on MAR rates, with cumulative percent revision at 15 years for patients < 55 years old of 7.8% (95% CI, 6.5% to 9.2%) compared with 1.0% for those ≥ 75 years old (95% CI, 0.8% to 1.1%; P < 0.001). |
| Bayliss [30] | Lancet | 2017 |
50–54, 55–59, 60–64, 65–69, 70–74, 75–79, 80–84, ≥85 |
54,276 | For patients aged 70 years at implantation (mean age of implantation) LTRR was between 4·4% and 7·7%. For patients aged between 60 and 70 years, LTRR increased with decreasing age, reaching approximately 15% for both hip and knee replacement at 60 years, with greater risk in male than in female patients. Significant increase in LTRR was seen in younger men, with values 35.0% (30.9–39.1) seen in the youngest patient group (50–54 years) |
| Shin [41] | BMC Musculoskelet Disord | 2015 |
< 65, 65–74, ≥ 75 |
260,068 | The overall incidence rate of revision TKA was 367.3/100,000 person-years. The incidence in patients 50 years old or younger was extremely high. Incidence rate per 100,000 person-years: < 65 years (447.2), 65–74 years (363.7), ≥ 75 years (270.9) |
| Callaghan [38] | Clin Orthop Rel Res | 2015 |
< 65, ≥ 65 |
220 | Overall patient survivorship to 20-year follow up was only 26%. Patient survivorship at 20-year follow up was significantly higher in patients < 65 years of age in both cohorts (54% versus 15%, P < 0.001 modular tray cohort, and 52% versus 26%, P = 0.002 rotating platform cohort). |
| Meehan [45] | J Bone Joint Surg Am | 2014 |
< 50, 50–64, ≥ 65 |
120,538 | The risk of aseptic mechanical failure was 4.7 times higher (OR = 4.66, 95% CI, 3.77 to 5.76) in patients younger than 50 years of age, 2.1 times higher (OR = 2.09, 90% CI, 1.81–2.41) in patients 50–64 years compared with patients 65 years of age or older |
| Namba [49] | J Arthroplast | 2013 |
< 65, ≥ 65 |
64,017 | There was a significantly different revision rate (P < 0.001) in the < 65 and ≥ 65 years age groups. For every 10-year increase in age the risk of revision decreases by 38% (95% CI, 33%–43%, P < 0.001). |
| Wainwright [55] | Bone Joint J | 2011 |
< 50, 50–59, 60–75, ≥ 75 |
1538 | Patients younger than 50 years at the time of surgery have a greater chance of requiring revision than of dying, those around 58 years of age have a 50:50 chance of needing revision, and in those older than 62 years the prosthesis will normally outlast the patient. |
| Julin [56] | Acta Orthop | 2010 |
≤ 55, 56–65, > 65 |
32,019 | The 5-year survival rates were 92% and 95% in patients age ≤ 55 and 56–65 years, compared to 97% in patients who were > 65 years of age (P < 0.001) Overall risk of prosthesis failure > 3.7 years follow up: ≤ 55 years (5.0 [3.2–8.0]), 55–65 years (2.0 [1.4–2.9]) vs. > 65 years |
| No difference | |||||
| Lizaur-Utrilla [35] | Knee Surg Sport Traumatol Arthrosc | 2016 |
≤ 55: 61 60–70: 61 |
≤ 55, 60–70 | No significant relationship between revision and age younger than 55 and older than 55 years |
CI confidence interval, OR odds ratio, SD standard deviation, MAR major aseptic revision, LTRR lifetime risk of revision