Clinical outcome and patient satisfaction in aseptic and septic revision total knee arthroplasty

Ching Jen Wang*, Ming Chun Hsieh, Ting Wen Huang, Jun Wen Wang, Han Shiang Chen, Chen Yeo Liu

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal Article peer-review

77 Scopus citations


This study compares clinical outcome and patient satisfaction in 33 aseptic and 15 septic revision total knee arthroplasties across a 30-130-month follow-up. Aseptic revisions included only knees in which the femoral, tibial and patellar components had been exchanged, and excluded knees in which only isolated patellar components had been revised or only the tibial insert exchanged. Septic revisions included only knees in which there had been successful revision for chronic infection without recurrence of infection for at least 2 years from the index revision. The evaluation included pain scores, knee scores, functional scores, SF-12 functional surveys and radiographs of the knee. The results for the aseptic group were excellent in 26 (78.8%), good in 3 (9.0%), fair in 2 (6.1%) and poor in 2 (6.1%); those for the septic group were excellent in 5 (33.3%), good in 7 (46.7%), fair in 2 (13.3%) and poor in 1 (6.7%). The overall results of septic revision were less satisfactory than for aseptic revision. Aseptic revisions achieved significantly better knee scores and ranges of motion than septic revisions, but their pain and functional scores were similar. Despite the difference in knee scores, 85% of the patients from both groups were equally satisfied with the results of treatment. There was no discernible radiographic difference between the two groups, including radiolucency.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)45-49
Number of pages5
Issue number1
StatePublished - 02 2004
Externally publishedYes


  • Aseptic
  • Outcome
  • Revision
  • Septic
  • Total knee arthroplasties


Dive into the research topics of 'Clinical outcome and patient satisfaction in aseptic and septic revision total knee arthroplasty'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this