Imperial College London
Alternate

ProfessorJustinCobb

Faculty of Medicine, Department of Surgery & Cancer

Chair in Orthopaedic Surgery
 
 
 
//

Contact

 

+44 (0)20 7594 5534j.cobb Website

 
 
//

Assistant

 

Miss Colinette Hazel +44 (0)20 7594 2725

 
//

Location

 

c/oSir Michael Uren HubWhite City Campus

//

Summary

 

Publications

Citation

BibTex format

@article{Garner:2021:10.1302/2633-1462.28.BJO-2021-0086.R1,
author = {Garner, AJ and Edwards, TC and Liddle, AD and Jones, GG and Cobb, JP},
doi = {10.1302/2633-1462.28.BJO-2021-0086.R1},
journal = {Bone & Joint Open},
pages = {638--645},
title = {The revision partial knee classification system: understanding the causative pathology and magnitude of further surgery following partial knee arthroplasty.},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1302/2633-1462.28.BJO-2021-0086.R1},
volume = {2},
year = {2021}
}
Download

RIS format (EndNote, RefMan)

TY  - JOUR
AB  - AIMS: Joint registries classify all further arthroplasty procedures to a knee with an existing partial arthroplasty as revision surgery, regardless of the actual procedure performed. Relatively minor procedures, including bearing exchanges, are classified in the same way as major operations requiring augments and stems. A new classification system is proposed to acknowledge and describe the detail of these procedures, which has implications for risk, recovery, and health economics. METHODS: Classification categories were proposed by a surgical consensus group, then ranked by patients, according to perceived invasiveness and implications for recovery. In round one, 26 revision cases were classified by the consensus group. Results were tested for inter-rater reliability. In round two, four additional cases were added for clarity. Round three repeated the survey one month later, subject to inter- and intrarater reliability testing. In round four, five additional expert partial knee arthroplasty surgeons were asked to classify the 30 cases according to the proposed revision partial knee classification (RPKC) system. RESULTS: Four classes were proposed: PR1, where no bone-implant interfaces are affected; PR2, where surgery does not include conversion to total knee arthroplasty, for example, a second partial arthroplasty to a native compartment; PR3, when a standard primary total knee prosthesis is used; and PR4 when revision components are necessary. Round one resulted in 92% inter-rater agreement (Kendall's W 0.97; p < 0.005), rising to 93% in round two (Kendall's W 0.98; p < 0.001). Round three demonstrated 97% agreement (Kendall's W 0.98; p < 0.001), with high intra-rater reliability (interclass correlation coefficient (ICC) 0.99; 95% confidence interval 0.98 to 0.99). Round four resulted in 80% agreement (Kendall's W 0.92; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The RPKC system accounts for all procedures which may be appropriate following partial knee arthroplasty. It h
AU  - Garner,AJ
AU  - Edwards,TC
AU  - Liddle,AD
AU  - Jones,GG
AU  - Cobb,JP
DO  - 10.1302/2633-1462.28.BJO-2021-0086.R1
EP  - 645
PY  - 2021///
SN  - 2633-1462
SP  - 638
TI  - The revision partial knee classification system: understanding the causative pathology and magnitude of further surgery following partial knee arthroplasty.
T2  - Bone & Joint Open
UR  - http://dx.doi.org/10.1302/2633-1462.28.BJO-2021-0086.R1
UR  - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34392701
UR  - https://online.boneandjoint.org.uk/doi/full/10.1302/2633-1462.28.BJO-2021-0086.R1
UR  - http://hdl.handle.net/10044/1/95335
VL  - 2
ER  -
Download