Literature DB >> 15660058

Augments and allografts in revision total knee arthroplasty: usage and outcome using one modular revision prosthesis.

David E Hockman1, Deborah Ammeen, Gerard A Engh.   

Abstract

Sixty-five consecutive Coordinate (DePuy, Warsaw, Ind) revision total knee arthroplasties were eligible for minimum 5-year follow-up. Nine patients died and 2 patients were lost. Therefore, 54 knees (51 patients) had a known outcome. Nine knees failed and required either revision or component removal. Eight additional knees were considered clinical failures. Despite the use of metallic augmentation in 89% of the knees, large structural allografts were required in 48% of the knees. Revisions with bone loss that required bulk allograft failed less often (19.2%) than revisions managed without bulk allografts (42.9%). Of 24 knees originally revised for osteolysis/polyethylene wear, only 1 required rerevision for the same mechanism of failure. Modular augments did not effectively address the bone loss and instability encountered in many instances at revision surgery. Survivorship of this implant was 79.4% +/- 13.7% at 8 years.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15660058     DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2004.09.059

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Arthroplasty        ISSN: 0883-5403            Impact factor:   4.757


  22 in total

Review 1.  [Revision of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty].

Authors:  S Kirschner; J Lützner; S Fickert; K-P Günther
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 1.087

Review 2.  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

3.  Comparative assessment of different reconstructive techniques of distal femur in revision total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  A Completo; F Fonseca; A Ramos; J Simões
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2015-05-30       Impact factor: 4.342

4.  No Difference Between Trabecular Metal Cones and Femoral Head Allografts in Revision TKA: Minimum 5-year Followup.

Authors:  Nemandra A Sandiford; Peter Misur; Donald S Garbuz; Nelson V Greidanus; Bassam A Masri
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2017-01       Impact factor: 4.176

5.  Tantalum Cones Provide Durable Mid-term Fixation in Revision TKA.

Authors:  Ivan De Martino; Vincenzo De Santis; Peter K Sculco; Rocco D'Apolito; Joseph B Assini; Giorgio Gasparini
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2015-05-13       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 6.  Are Trabecular Metal Cones a Valid Option to Treat Metaphyseal Bone Defects in Complex Primary and Revision Knee Arthroplasty?

Authors:  Tommaso Bonanzinga; Thorsten Gehrke; Akos Zahar; Stefano Zaffagnini; Maurilio Marcacci; Carl Haasper
Journal:  Joints       Date:  2017-12-14

7.  Revision of tibial TKA components: bone loss is independent of cementing type and technique: an in vitro cadaver study.

Authors:  Turgay Efe; Jens Figiel; David Sibbert; Susanne Fuchs-Winkelmann; Carsten O Tibesku; Nina Timmesfeld; Jürgen R J R Paletta; Adrian Skwara
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2011-01-10       Impact factor: 2.362

8.  Can tantalum cones provide fixation in complex revision knee arthroplasty?

Authors:  Paul F Lachiewicz; Michael P Bolognesi; Robert A Henderson; Elizabeth S Soileau; Thomas Parker Vail
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 4.176

9.  Limitations of structural allograft in revision total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Ryan D Bauman; David G Lewallen; Arlen D Hanssen
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2009-01-07       Impact factor: 4.176

10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.