Literature DB >> 10098042

Bone loss with revision total knee arthroplasty: defect classification and alternatives for reconstruction.

G A Engh1, D J Ammeen.   

Abstract

Although the best method for managing large bone defects has not been established, the variables to consider are: (1) implant constraint (posterior-stabilized, varus-valgus-constrained, rotating hinge); (2) stem configuration (straight versus tapered, standard, or long-stemmed); (3) stem fixation (cement versus press-fit); and (4) method of bone-defect repair (cement, augments, bone graft). In principle, an implant with the least constraint required for satisfactory knee stability is selected to reduce stress on the implant-fixation interface with compromised bone. The severity of bone loss largely influences stem length. Canal-filling stems and cementless stem fixation are indicated when major structural allografts are used. Bone defects can be successfully and reliably repaired with metal augments, allograft bone, or cement, as long as long-stemmed components without excessive constraint are selected. Because structural allografts do not revascularize, the major advantage of the allograft, as compared to cement fill or augments, is the ability to unite to damaged host bone that has a poor cancellous structure.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10098042

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Instr Course Lect        ISSN: 0065-6895


  87 in total

1.  Revision total knee arthroplasty: a comparison of postoperative leg alignment after computer-assisted implantation versus the conventional technique.

Authors:  Lars Perlick; Holger Bäthis; Carsten Perlick; Christian Lüring; Markus Tingart; Joachim Grifka
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2004-04-08       Impact factor: 4.342

2.  The role of offset stems in revision knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Andrea Baldini; Giovanni Balato; Vincenzo Franceschini
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2015-12

3.  Metaphyseal bone loss in revision knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Danielle Y Ponzio; Matthew S Austin
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2015-12

4.  Extent of vertical cementing as a predictive factor for radiolucency in revision total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Du Hyun Ro; Yool Cho; Sahnghoon Lee; Kee Yun Chung; Seong Hwan Kim; Young Min Lee; Joon Kyu Lee; Myung Chul Lee
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2016-02-01       Impact factor: 4.342

5.  [Revision implants of the future: trends and new developments].

Authors:  S Winkler; F-X Köck; C Baier; H-R Springorum; A Beifuss; P Lechler; J Grifka; J Schaumburger
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 1.087

6.  Results of press-fit stems in revision knee arthroplasties.

Authors:  Gavin C Wood; Douglas D R Naudie; Steven J MacDonald; Richard W McCalden; Robert B Bourne
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2008-11-26       Impact factor: 4.176

7.  Revision total knee arthroplasty for major osteolysis.

Authors:  R Stephen J Burnett; James A Keeney; William J Maloney; John C Clohisy
Journal:  Iowa Orthop J       Date:  2009

Review 8.  Bone loss management in total knee revision surgery.

Authors:  Gabriele Panegrossi; Marco Ceretti; Matteo Papalia; Filippo Casella; Fabio Favetti; Francesco Falez
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2014-01-10       Impact factor: 3.075

9.  A 30-mm cemented stem extension provides adequate fixation of the tibial component in revision knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Paul F Lachiewicz; Elizabeth S Soileau
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 4.176

10.  Revision of 33 unicompartmental knee prostheses using total knee arthroplasty: strategy and results.

Authors:  Dominique Saragaglia; Gilles Estour; Charbel Nemer; Pierre-Emmanuel Colle
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2008-06-18       Impact factor: 3.075

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.