{ "id": "epz2b22ee4", "slug": "revision-arthroplasty", "title": "Revision arthroplasty", "updated": "2026-10-15", "topic_path": [ { "id": "life", "label": "Life and health", "api_url": "https://www.edgepedia.org/api/v1/topics/life" }, { "id": "life.health", "label": "Human health and medicine", "api_url": "https://www.edgepedia.org/api/v1/topics/life.health" }, { "id": "life.health.clinical", "label": "Clinical assessment and procedures", "api_url": "https://www.edgepedia.org/api/v1/topics/life.health.clinical" }, { "id": "life.health.clinical.clinical-surgery", "label": "Surgery and surgical specialties", "api_url": "https://www.edgepedia.org/api/v1/topics/life.health.clinical.clinical-surgery" }, { "id": "life.health.clinical.clinical-surgery.orthopedic-surgery-procedures", "label": "Orthopedic surgery procedures", "api_url": "https://www.edgepedia.org/api/v1/topics/life.health.clinical.clinical-surgery.orthopedic-surgery-procedures" }, { "id": "life.health.clinical.clinical-surgery.orthopedic-surgery-procedures.joint-replacement-and-arthroplasty", "label": "Joint replacement and arthroplasty", "api_url": "https://www.edgepedia.org/api/v1/topics/life.health.clinical.clinical-surgery.orthopedic-surgery-procedures.joint-replacement-and-arthroplasty" } ], "geo": [ { "id": "geo.nongeo.t1946.life.health.clinical.clinical-surgery.orthopedic-surgery-procedures.joint-replacement-and-arthroplasty", "label": "Non-geographic · 1946 to 2000: Joint replacement and arthroplasty", "api_url": "https://www.edgepedia.org/api/v1/geo/geo.nongeo.t1946.life.health.clinical.clinical-surgery.orthopedic-surgery-procedures.joint-replacement-and-arthroplasty", "path": [ { "id": "geo.nongeo", "label": "Non-geographic", "api_url": "https://www.edgepedia.org/api/v1/geo/geo.nongeo" }, { "id": "geo.nongeo.t1946", "label": "Non-geographic · 1946 to 2000", "api_url": "https://www.edgepedia.org/api/v1/geo/geo.nongeo.t1946" }, { "id": "geo.nongeo.t1946.life", "label": "Life and health", "api_url": "https://www.edgepedia.org/api/v1/geo/geo.nongeo.t1946.life" }, { "id": "geo.nongeo.t1946.life.health", "label": "Human health and medicine", "api_url": "https://www.edgepedia.org/api/v1/geo/geo.nongeo.t1946.life.health" }, { "id": "geo.nongeo.t1946.life.health.clinical", "label": "Clinical assessment and procedures", "api_url": "https://www.edgepedia.org/api/v1/geo/geo.nongeo.t1946.life.health.clinical" }, { "id": "geo.nongeo.t1946.life.health.clinical.clinical-surgery", "label": "Surgery and surgical specialties", "api_url": "https://www.edgepedia.org/api/v1/geo/geo.nongeo.t1946.life.health.clinical.clinical-surgery" }, { "id": "geo.nongeo.t1946.life.health.clinical.clinical-surgery.orthopedic-surgery-procedures", "label": "Orthopedic surgery procedures", "api_url": "https://www.edgepedia.org/api/v1/geo/geo.nongeo.t1946.life.health.clinical.clinical-surgery.orthopedic-surgery-procedures" }, { "id": "geo.nongeo.t1946.life.health.clinical.clinical-surgery.orthopedic-surgery-procedures.joint-replacement-and-arthroplasty", "label": "Joint replacement and arthroplasty", "api_url": "https://www.edgepedia.org/api/v1/geo/geo.nongeo.t1946.life.health.clinical.clinical-surgery.orthopedic-surgery-procedures.joint-replacement-and-arthroplasty" } ] } ], "excerpt": "Revision arthroplasty is surgery to replace or repair a failed joint prosthesis, such as a hip or knee replacement, caused by loosening, infection, or wear.", "snippet": "Revision arthroplasty is surgery to replace or repair a failed joint prosthesis, such as a hip or knee replacement, caused by loosening, infection, or wear.", "node": "life.health.clinical.clinical-surgery.orthopedic-surgery-procedures.joint-replacement-and-arthroplasty", "markdown": "# Revision arthroplasty\n\nRevision arthroplasty is surgery to replace or repair a previously implanted joint prosthesis, such as a total hip or knee replacement that has failed through loosening, infection, or wear. It differs from primary joint replacement in scope: it is a longer, more complex procedure requiring extensive preoperative planning, specialized implants, and specialized tools.[1](https://www.orthoinfo.org/treatment/revision-total-knee-replacement/) The workload is large and growing. In 2022 almost 2.1 million primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasties were performed in the United States,[2](https://content.e-bookshelf.de/media/reading/L-23870098-e32630c521.pdf) and from 1996 to 2019 the US incidence of revision knee replacement rose 147%, from 19 to 47 per 100,000 person-years.[3](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12494052/)\n\n| Key fact | Value |\n|---|---|\n| Revision knee incidence, US | 19 to 47 per 100,000 person-years (1996–2019), a 147% rise[3](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12494052/) |\n| Leading causes of revision THA | Aseptic loosening 35.1%, deep infection 18.2%, dislocation/instability 15.9%, periprosthetic fracture 11.4%[4](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00402-024-05379-2) |\n| Leading causes of revision TKA | Deep infection 21.6%, aseptic loosening 18.3%, instability 14.1%, pain 10.9%[4](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00402-024-05379-2) |\n| Survivorship after aseptic revision knee arthroplasty | 95.5% at 1 year, 90.8% at 5 years, 87.4% at 10 years, 83.2% at 15 years[5](https://systematicreviewsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13643-023-02290-6) |\n| Single- vs two-stage exchange for infection | No significant difference in reinfection (OR 0.88; 95% CI 0.73–1.07)[6](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12891-024-07229-z) |\n| Infection risk vs primary TKA | Three to four times greater[7](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5367533/) |\n| 90-day mortality, elective aseptic revision knee | 0.44%, similar to primary knee arthroplasty (0.46%); infected revision 2.04%[5](https://systematicreviewsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13643-023-02290-6) |\n\n## How it works\n\nA prosthesis fails in one of a handful of ways: loosening of the implant from bone, osteolysis caused by wear particles from the plastic spacer, infection, instability, stiffness, or periprosthetic fracture.[1](https://www.orthoinfo.org/treatment/revision-total-knee-replacement/) Loosening is usually secondary to osteolysis, attributed to the macrophage response to accumulated polyethylene debris within the joint.[8](https://orthoarchives.com/en/orthoscience/article/W2051882239) Registry data now show a split by joint: for the hip, aseptic loosening remains the most common cause (35.1%), while for the knee, deep infection (21.6%) has overtaken aseptic loosening (18.3%).[4](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00402-024-05379-2) Periprosthetic joint infection accounts for roughly 15–25% of revision total joint arthroplasties in large national registries.[9](https://www.mdpi.com/2075-1729/15/12/1853)\n\nDistinguishing infection from aseptic loosening drives the whole workup. Serum inflammatory markers and joint aspiration come first; synovial biomarkers such as alpha-defensin, leukocyte esterase, calprotectin, and D-lactate improve diagnosis in equivocal and culture-negative cases, but none has sufficient evidence to replace established criteria and all serve as adjuncts.[10](https://www.dovepress.com/current-concepts-in-periprosthetic-joint-infection-modern-biomarkers-m-peer-reviewed-fulltext-article-ORR) The diagnostic framework most often cited is the 2018 evidence-based definition of periprosthetic hip and knee infection reported by Javad Parvizi and colleagues.[11](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2018.02.078)\n\n## How it is done\n\nExposure in the knee usually starts with a medial parapatellar arthrotomy; if exposure is inadequate, a quadriceps snip continues the arthrotomy superiorly and laterally at a 45° angle, with no change to the postoperative routine.[7](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5367533/) Components are then removed in a fixed order to preserve exposure: tibial polyethylene insert, femoral component, tibial component, then patellar component.[7](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5367533/) In the hip, cement removal may require an osteotomy of the femur, and a proximally porous-coated cementless stem may need an osteotomy just below the porous coating, with sectioning of the stem and trephine reamers used for the distal segment.[12](https://www.grupocaneva.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/arcos-modular-femoral-revision-system-surgical-technique.pdf) A distal revision stem is placed after reaming two cortical diameters, or 2–3 cm below the distal defect, until cortical \"chatter\" is achieved.[12](https://www.grupocaneva.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/arcos-modular-femoral-revision-system-surgical-technique.pdf)\n\nIn revision, the amount of bone resected is held to a minimum.[13](https://www.odev.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/BKS_Revision_Surgical_Technique_.pdf) Restoring the joint line matters: elevation of more than 4 mm is associated with lower postoperative function.[14](https://www.ovid.com/jnls/otr/fulltext/10.4103/otr.otr_4_23~implant-selection-in-revision-total-knee-arthroplasty) Bone loss is graded before reconstruction. For the knee, the AORI (Anderson Orthopaedic Research Institute) classification grades defects from Type I (cancellous bone only, intact metaphysis) through Type II (metaphyseal, one or both condyles or plateaus) to Type III (deficiency extending to the collateral ligament and patellar tendon attachments).[15](https://www.mdpi.com/2673-1592/5/4/82) For the femur in hip revision, the Paprosky classification is described as arguably the most useful of the classifications in current use.[8](https://orthoarchives.com/en/orthoscience/article/W2051882239)\n\n## Origin\n\nRevision arthroplasty grew out of the exponential rise in joint replacement itself: Sweden performed 6 total hip replacements in 1967 and 13,822 by 2005.[8](https://orthoarchives.com/en/orthoscience/article/W2051882239) The modern hip prosthesis traces to [John Charnley](https://www.edgepedia.org/john-charnley)'s low-friction arthroplasty, reported in [The Lancet](https://www.edgepedia.org/the-lancet) in 1961;[16](https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736%2861%2992063-3) that line began with Teflon resurfacing and moved by 1962 to a high-density polyethylene cup with a cemented femoral stem and a 22.25-mm femoral head.[8](https://orthoarchives.com/en/orthoscience/article/W2051882239) On the knee side, M. A. R. Freeman, S. A. V. Swanson, and R. C. Todd reported total knee replacement with the Freeman-Swanson prosthesis in 1973.[17](https://doi.org/10.1097/00003086-197307000-00020) As failures accumulated, understanding of the biology shifted from \"cement disease\" to \"particle disease\", with polyethylene wear recognized as the limit on durability.[18](https://www.ors.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/History-of-Joint-Arthroplasty-Handout.pdf) Tools for revision followed: Alexandre Nehme, David G. Lewallen, and Arlen D. Hanssen reported modular porous metal augments for severe acetabular bone loss in 2004,[19](https://doi.org/10.1097/01.blo.0000150133.88271.80) and the 2018 infection definition[11](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2018.02.078) and the 2012 Infectious Diseases Society of America guidelines on prosthetic joint infection, by Douglas R. Osmon and colleagues, standardized decision-making.[20](https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/cis966)\n\n## Variants\n\n**Implant constructs.** Revision implants use longer, thicker stems that fit deeper inside the bone for extra support, with metal augments or bone graft rebuilding bony deficits.[1](https://www.orthoinfo.org/treatment/revision-total-knee-replacement/) Fixation and long-term durability are inversely proportional to prosthesis constraint, so the aim is stability with the least constraint.[14](https://www.ovid.com/jnls/otr/fulltext/10.4103/otr.otr_4_23~implant-selection-in-revision-total-knee-arthroplasty) Augments come as blocks or wedges, 5 to 20 mm thick, used in noncontained defects over 10 mm or involving more than 50% of the condylar surface.[14](https://www.ovid.com/jnls/otr/fulltext/10.4103/otr.otr_4_23~implant-selection-in-revision-total-knee-arthroplasty) [Uncontained](https://www.edgepedia.org/uncontained) defects, which lack a peripheral cortical rim, typically require modular block augments, bulk allograft, or metal metaphyseal sleeves or cones.[7](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5367533/) Cones are implanted press-fit into the prepared defect and the prosthesis is then cemented into the cone; sleeves are bonded to the stem with a Morse taper and inserted press-fit after broaching.[15](https://www.mdpi.com/2673-1592/5/4/82) Constraint is chosen by ligament status and gap balance: constrained condylar knee (CCK) systems suit intermediate ligamentous insufficiency with moderate bone loss, rotating hinges are required for complete ligament disruption or severe bone loss;[7](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5367533/) if the flexion–extension gap difference is under 10 mm a CCK suffices, above 10 mm a rotating hinged prosthesis is preferred.[14](https://www.ovid.com/jnls/otr/fulltext/10.4103/otr.otr_4_23~implant-selection-in-revision-total-knee-arthroplasty)\n\n**Infection strategies.** Revision for infection can take three forms: debridement and implant retention (DAIR), one-stage exchange, or two-stage surgery with an antibiotic cement spacer and intravenous antibiotics.[1](https://www.orthoinfo.org/treatment/revision-total-knee-replacement/) DAIR combines radical debridement and [synovectomy](https://www.edgepedia.org/synovectomy), exchange of modular components, copious lavage, and 6–12 weeks of culture-directed antibiotics.[9](https://www.mdpi.com/2075-1729/15/12/1853) A meta-analysis of 40 studies and 8,711 patients found no significant difference between single- and two-stage revision in reinfection (OR 0.88; 95% CI 0.73–1.07; P = 0.209) or reoperation rates, though all included studies were non-randomized with surgeon-preference allocation favoring two-stage revision in severe infections.[6](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12891-024-07229-z) The INFORM randomized trial of single- versus two-stage revision for hip prosthetic joint infection, by Ashley W. Blom and colleagues in 2022, addressed this question directly.[21](https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2022-071281) Single-stage offers shorter activity restriction, reduced hospitalization and costs.[6](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12891-024-07229-z)\n\n## Applications\n\nPooled all-cause survivorship after elective aseptic revision knee arthroplasty is 95.5% (95% CI 93.2–97.7) at 1 year, 90.8% at 5 years, 87.4% at 10 years, and 83.2% at 15 years.[5](https://systematicreviewsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13643-023-02290-6) Patient experience is mixed: in NHS PROMS data on 10,727 patients, 69.4% were satisfied and 74.1% felt the surgery was a success, but patient-reported early complications reached 46.0% at 6 months.[5](https://systematicreviewsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13643-023-02290-6) At the population level, overall revision rates fell from 15% to 9% for THA and from 9% to 5% for TKA compared with a decade earlier,[4](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00402-024-05379-2) and modeling expected failure rates suggests about 75,000 fewer revision joint surgeries occur each year than expected.[3](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12494052/)\n\n## Limitations and alternatives\n\nRevision carries higher risk than primary surgery: infection risk in revision TKA is three to four times greater, attributed to longer operative time, poor vascularization of soft tissue and bone after multiple operations, previous wound-healing problems, and greater patient age.[7](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5367533/) After elective aseptic revision knee arthroplasty, mortality within 1 year is 0.16% to 2%, any postoperative complication occurs in 9.1% to 37.2% of patients at 90 days, transfusion is needed in 8.4% to 18.4%, and readmission ranges from 13% to 23%.[5](https://systematicreviewsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13643-023-02290-6) Porous cones carry their own burden: one study found a postoperative complication rate of almost 45%, mainly periprosthetic joint infection and stiffness.[15](https://www.mdpi.com/2673-1592/5/4/82)\n\n**Alternatives to revision.** For infection, DAIR succeeds in 30% to 80% of acute cases depending on pathogen virulence, technique, and timing, while [resection arthroplasty](https://www.edgepedia.org/resection-arthroplasty) and chronic suppressive therapy achieve 60–70% infection control with poor function.[9](https://www.mdpi.com/2075-1729/15/12/1853) Scoring tools help choose: the KLIC score predicts failure after DAIR, the CRIME80 score identifies poor-outcome predictors in elderly patients, and the McPherson classification stratifies host status, infection chronicity, and local conditions.[9](https://www.mdpi.com/2075-1729/15/12/1853)\n\n**What has changed recently.** Between 2010 and 2020 the share of US revisions due to loosening and wear fell from 34.3% to 20.7% for hips and 49.2% to 28.5% for knees, while infection rose from 8.2% to 21.9% (hip) and 15.0% to 31.1% (knee);[3](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12494052/) registry reviews report the same direction, with septic revisions rising from 14.8% to 21.6% (TKA) and 7.5% to 18.2% (THA) as aseptic loosening declined.[4](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00402-024-05379-2) The authors attribute the falling loosening burden partly to ultra highly crosslinked and vitamin E doped polyethylene with markedly lower wear rates.[3](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12494052/) On the infection side, engineered antimicrobial peptides, alternating magnetic field technologies, and metagenomic next-generation sequencing for culture-negative cases are emerging, though nanotechnology coatings remain preclinical and sequencing is limited by cost and contaminants.[10](https://www.dovepress.com/current-concepts-in-periprosthetic-joint-infection-modern-biomarkers-m-peer-reviewed-fulltext-article-ORR)\n\n## References\n\n1. [Revision Total Knee Replacement - OrthoInfo - AAOS](https://www.orthoinfo.org/treatment/revision-total-knee-replacement/)\n2. [Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty (3rd edition, sample chapter)](https://content.e-bookshelf.de/media/reading/L-23870098-e32630c521.pdf)\n3. [The Missing Revision Burden: Total Hip and Knee Replacement Revision Rates in the United States, 1996 to 2020](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12494052/)\n4. [Septic complications are on the rise and aseptic loosening has decreased in total joint arthroplasty: an updated complication based analysis using worldwide arthroplasty registers](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00402-024-05379-2)\n5. [Patient-relevant outcomes following elective, aseptic revision knee arthroplasty: a systematic review](https://systematicreviewsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13643-023-02290-6)\n6. [Systematic review and meta-analysis of single-stage vs two-stage revision for periprosthetic joint infection: a call for a prospective randomized trial](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12891-024-07229-z)\n7. [Revision knee surgery techniques](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5367533/)\n8. [Revision arthroplasty: an update (2009, DOI 10.1007/s00256-009-0781-z)](https://orthoarchives.com/en/orthoscience/article/W2051882239)\n9. [Infection in Joint Arthroplasty: Diagnosis, Prevention, and Treatment Strategies, A Comprehensive Narrative Review](https://www.mdpi.com/2075-1729/15/12/1853)\n10. [Current Status of Periprosthetic Joint Infection: Modern Biomarkers, Microbiome, and Prevention](https://www.dovepress.com/current-concepts-in-periprosthetic-joint-infection-modern-biomarkers-m-peer-reviewed-fulltext-article-ORR)\n11. [Javad Parvizi and colleagues (2018). The 2018 Definition of Periprosthetic Hip and Knee Infection: An Evidence-Based and Validated Criteria. The Journal of Arthroplasty.](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2018.02.078)\n12. [Arcos Modular Femoral Revision System Surgical Technique](https://www.grupocaneva.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/arcos-modular-femoral-revision-system-surgical-technique.pdf)\n13. [Balanced Knee Revision System Surgical Technique](https://www.odev.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/BKS_Revision_Surgical_Technique_.pdf)\n14. [Implant Selection in Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty](https://www.ovid.com/jnls/otr/fulltext/10.4103/otr.otr_4_23~implant-selection-in-revision-total-knee-arthroplasty)\n15. [The Management of Bone Defects in Revision Knee Arthroplasty: The Role of Porous Metal Cones and 3D-Printed Cones](https://www.mdpi.com/2673-1592/5/4/82)\n16. [ARTHROPLASTY OF THE HIP A New Operation (The Lancet, 1961)](https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736%2861%2992063-3)\n17. [M A R Freeman, S A V Swanson, R C Todd (1973). Total Replacement of the Knee Using the Freeman-Swanson Knee Prosthesis. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research.](https://doi.org/10.1097/00003086-197307000-00020)\n18. [The Evolution of Total Joint Arthroplasty: A Historical Review of Hip, Knee, and Shoulder Prosthesis Design Advances (ORS workshop handout)](https://www.ors.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/History-of-Joint-Arthroplasty-Handout.pdf)\n19. [Alexandre Nehme, David G Lewallen, Arlen D Hanssen (2004). Modular Porous Metal Augments for Treatment of Severe Acetabular Bone Loss during Revision Hip Arthroplasty. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research.](https://doi.org/10.1097/01.blo.0000150133.88271.80)\n20. [Douglas R. Osmon and colleagues (2012). Executive Summary: Diagnosis and Management of Prosthetic Joint Infection: Clinical Practice Guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of Americaa. Clinical Infectious Diseases.](https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/cis966)\n21. [Ashley W Blom and colleagues (2022). Clinical and cost effectiveness of single stage compared with two stage revision for hip prosthetic joint infection (INFORM): pragmatic, parallel group, open label, randomised controlled trial. BMJ.](https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2022-071281)\n\n---\n*Topic: Encyclopedia › Life and health › Human health and medicine › Clinical assessment and procedures › Surgery and surgical specialties › Orthopedic surgery procedures › Joint replacement and arthroplasty*\n\n*Initially written Sep 29, 2026 · Edited: Oct 15, 2026*\n\n*Copyright 2026 EdgeChat AI, a subsidiary of Biostate AI.*\n\nLicense: Edgepedia Community License 1.0, https://www.edgepedia.org/edgepedia/license\n", "same_as": [], "url": "https://www.edgepedia.org/revision-arthroplasty", "markdown_url": "https://www.edgepedia.org/revision-arthroplasty.md", "license": { "name": "Edgepedia Community License 1.0", "url": "https://www.edgepedia.org/edgepedia/license", "summary": "Free with credit, commercial use included. AI training is open to everyone. For other uses, organizations over USD 100M in revenue or 100M monthly users license separately.", "spdx": "LicenseRef-Edgepedia-Community-1.0" }, "credit": "\"Revision arthroplasty\", Edgepedia (EdgeChat), https://www.edgepedia.org/revision-arthroplasty. Edgepedia Community License 1.0.", "credit_md": "\"[Revision arthroplasty](https://www.edgepedia.org/revision-arthroplasty)\", Edgepedia (EdgeChat), [https://www.edgepedia.org/revision-arthroplasty](https://www.edgepedia.org/revision-arthroplasty). [Edgepedia Community License 1.0](https://www.edgepedia.org/edgepedia/license).", "credit_html": "\"Revision arthroplasty\", Edgepedia (EdgeChat), https://www.edgepedia.org/revision-arthroplasty. Edgepedia Community License 1.0.", "speakable": "Revision arthroplasty is surgery to replace or repair a failed joint prosthesis, such as a hip or knee replacement, caused by loosening, infection, or wear." }