Literature DB >> 12937894

Quality of life and clinical outcome in salvage revision total knee replacement: hinged vs total condylar design.

Susanne Fuchs1, Christian Sandmann, Georg Gerdemann, Adrian Skwara, Carsten O Tibesku, Friedrich Bottner.   

Abstract

This study compared the overall outcome after salvage revision total knee arthroplasty using hinged and nonhinged designs. We followed 26 total knee arthroplasties for an average of 20.4 months. The average age was 68.5 years. All patients had a salvage situation secondary to excessive bone loss, enlarged flexion gap, collateral ligament insufficiency, or extensor mechanism insufficiency. Ten patients received a hinged implant after an average of 2.8 prior total knee replacements. Sixteen patients received nonhinged constrained implants after an average of 3.4 prior total knee replacements. The outcome was evaluated using the Hospital for Special Surgery Score (HSS), the Knee Society Score (KSS), the Visual Analogue Scale for pain (VAS), the Tegner Activity Score, the Patella Score, and the Short Form-36 Health Survey (SF-36). There was a statistically significant difference in flexion range of motion between hinged and nonhinged designs (96.5 degrees vs. 107.5 degrees ) but not in HSS, KSS, VAS, Tegner Activity Score, or Patella Score. Patients with hinged and nonhinged prostheses had significantly lower scores than an age-matched normal population in physical functioning, role limitations, and bodily pain on the SF-36 survey. However, patients with a hinged implant had no statistically significant difference compared to controls in the mental component summary. In salvage total knee arthroplasty the implant design does not significantly affect the overall functional outcome. However, patients with a hinged implant had significant better scores in the mental components of the SF36 quality-of-life assessment.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12937894     DOI: 10.1007/s00167-003-0401-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc        ISSN: 0942-2056            Impact factor:   4.342


  17 in total

1.  The kinematic rotating hinge prosthesis for complex knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  B D Springer; A D Hanssen; F H Sim; D G Lewallen
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2001-11       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  Hinged total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  F C Hui; R H Fitzgerald
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1980       Impact factor: 5.284

3.  The GSB total knee arthroplasty. A medium- and long-term follow-up and survival analysis.

Authors:  C J van Loon; C Pluk; M C de Waal Malefijt; M de Kock; R P Veth
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 3.067

4.  The use of a modular rotating hinge component in salvage revision total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  R L Barrack; T R Lyons; R Q Ingraham; J C Johnson
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 4.757

5.  Hinge total knee replacement revisited.

Authors:  H U Cameron; C Hu; D Vyamont
Journal:  Can J Surg       Date:  1997-08       Impact factor: 2.089

6.  Comparison between a Constrained Condylar and a Rotating Hinge in revision knee surgery.

Authors:  P S Walker; A R Manktelow
Journal:  Knee       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 2.199

7.  Rotating hinge total knee arthroplasty in severly affected knees.

Authors:  G H Westrich; A V Mollano; T P Sculco; R L Buly; R S Laskin; R Windsor
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 4.176

8.  Long-term results of the total condylar knee arthroplasty. A 15-year survivorship study.

Authors:  C S Ranawat; W F Flynn; S Saddler; K K Hansraj; M J Maynard
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1993-01       Impact factor: 4.176

9.  Comparison of the hospital cost of primary and revision total knee arthroplasty after cost containment.

Authors:  R Iorio; W L Healy; J A Richards
Journal:  Orthopedics       Date:  1999-02       Impact factor: 1.390

10.  Total knee arthroplasty using the kinematic rotating hinge prosthesis.

Authors:  J A Shaw; W Balcom; R B Greer
Journal:  Orthopedics       Date:  1989-05       Impact factor: 1.390

View more
  12 in total

1.  Constraint choice in revision knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Michele Vasso; Philippe Beaufils; Alfredo Schiavone Panni
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2013-05-23       Impact factor: 3.075

2.  Increased constraint of rotating hinge knee prosthesis is associated with poorer clinical outcomes as compared to constrained condylar knee prosthesis in total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Jason Beng Teck Lim; Hee Nee Pang; Keng Jin Darren Tay; Shi-Lu Chia; Ngai Nung Lo; Seng Jin Yeo
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2019-12-16

3.  Functional outcome following aseptic single-stage revision knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Ajay Malviya; Nigel T Brewster; Karen Bettinson; James P Holland; David J Weir; David J Deehan
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2011-11-22       Impact factor: 4.342

4.  Primary total knee arthroplasty using rotating-hinge prosthesis in severely affected knees.

Authors:  Jae-Hyuk Yang; Jung-Ro Yoon; Chi-Hun Oh; Taik-Sun Kim
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2011-07-20       Impact factor: 4.342

5.  Modular augmentation in revision total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Alfredo Schiavone Panni; Michele Vasso; Simone Cerciello
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2012-10-31       Impact factor: 4.342

6.  Hot spots and trends in knee revision research since the 21st century: a bibliometric analysis.

Authors:  Kelei Zhai; Weifeng Ma; Tao Huang
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2021-03

7.  The impact of joint line restoration on functional results after hinged knee prosthesis.

Authors:  Serdar Yilmaz; Deniz Cankaya; Alper Deveci; Ahmet Firat; Bulent Ozkurt; Murat Bozkurt
Journal:  Indian J Orthop       Date:  2016 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 1.251

8.  Constraint choice in revision knee arthroplasty: study protocol of a randomised controlled trial assessing the effect of level of constraint on postoperative outcome.

Authors:  Hagen Hommel; Kai Wilke; Daniel Kunze; Peggy Hommel; Peter Fennema
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2017-03-27       Impact factor: 2.692

9.  Mid-term results after implantation of rotating-hinge knee prostheses: primary versus revision.

Authors:  Turgay Efe; Philip P Roessler; Thomas J Heyse; Carsten Hauk; Caroline Pahrmann; Alan Getgood; Jan Schmitt
Journal:  Orthop Rev (Pavia)       Date:  2012-12-11

10.  Early results of a new rotating hinge knee implant.

Authors:  Alexander Giurea; Hans-Joachim Neuhaus; Rolf Miehlke; Reinhard Schuh; Richard Lass; Bernd Kubista; Reinhard Windhager
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2014-06-25       Impact factor: 3.411

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.