Fahad Hossain1, Shelain Patel, Fares Sami Haddad. 1. Department of Trauma and Orthopaedics, University College London Hospital, 250 Euston Road, London NW1 2PG, UK. f.hossain@doctors.org.uk
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is limited information regarding revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) with respect to etiology, outcome, and long-term survival comparing different implant types. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We compared patient outcomes, survivorship and modes of failure and the most common etiologic factors for rerevision between different revision implant types. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 349 cases of revision TKA in 343 patients whose mean age was 67.8 years. Three implant types were used: posterior stabilized, condylar constrained knee, and rotating hinge. The etiologies included infection (32.7%), aseptic loosening (14.9%), and polyethylene wear (12.3%). The minimum followup was 12 months (mean, 57.7 months; range, 12-120 months). RESULTS: The mean Knee Society scores were 89 (range, 48-94), 88.9 (range, 45-95), and 84 (range, 56-94) and the mean ranges of motion were 110.0 degrees (range, 70 degrees -125 degrees ), 106.1 degrees (range, 70 degrees -120 degrees ), and 111.7 degrees (range, 85 degrees -125 degrees ) for the posterior stabilized, condylar constrained knee, and rotating hinge types, respectively. The rotating hinge group had the highest satisfaction rates (88%). Overall 10-year survivorship was 90.6% with highest survivorship seen in the rotating hinge group. The most common causes for rerevision were infection (2.9% of our cohort), instability (1.7%), and aseptic loosening (1.4%). The mean overall time to rerevision was 69.9 months (range, 11-119 months). CONCLUSIONS: In our experience periprosthetic infection is the most common cause of failure of both primary and revision TKA. Functional outcome and range of motion improve irrespective of revision implant type. The rotating hinge prosthesis provides patient satisfaction and survivorship similar to that of other implant types. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
BACKGROUND: There is limited information regarding revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) with respect to etiology, outcome, and long-term survival comparing different implant types. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We compared patient outcomes, survivorship and modes of failure and the most common etiologic factors for rerevision between different revision implant types. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 349 cases of revision TKA in 343 patients whose mean age was 67.8 years. Three implant types were used: posterior stabilized, condylar constrained knee, and rotating hinge. The etiologies included infection (32.7%), aseptic loosening (14.9%), and polyethylene wear (12.3%). The minimum followup was 12 months (mean, 57.7 months; range, 12-120 months). RESULTS: The mean Knee Society scores were 89 (range, 48-94), 88.9 (range, 45-95), and 84 (range, 56-94) and the mean ranges of motion were 110.0 degrees (range, 70 degrees -125 degrees ), 106.1 degrees (range, 70 degrees -120 degrees ), and 111.7 degrees (range, 85 degrees -125 degrees ) for the posterior stabilized, condylar constrained knee, and rotating hinge types, respectively. The rotating hinge group had the highest satisfaction rates (88%). Overall 10-year survivorship was 90.6% with highest survivorship seen in the rotating hinge group. The most common causes for rerevision were infection (2.9% of our cohort), instability (1.7%), and aseptic loosening (1.4%). The mean overall time to rerevision was 69.9 months (range, 11-119 months). CONCLUSIONS: In our experience periprosthetic infection is the most common cause of failure of both primary and revision TKA. Functional outcome and range of motion improve irrespective of revision implant type. The rotating hinge prosthesis provides patient satisfaction and survivorship similar to that of other implant types. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
Authors: Peter F Sharkey; William J Hozack; Richard H Rothman; Shani Shastri; Sidney M Jacoby Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2002-11 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: R A Berger; A G Rosenberg; R M Barden; M B Sheinkop; J J Jacobs; J O Galante Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2001-07 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Robert A Malinzak; Merrill A Ritter; Michael E Berend; John B Meding; Emily M Olberding; Kenneth E Davis Journal: J Arthroplasty Date: 2009-07-15 Impact factor: 4.757
Authors: Nienke M Kosse; Petra J C Heesterbeek; Janneke J P Schimmel; Gijs G van Hellemondt; Ate B Wymenga; Koen C Defoort Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2017-11-28 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Paul Lichstein; Sharlene Su; Hakan Hedlund; Gina Suh; William J Maloney; Stuart B Goodman; James I Huddleston Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2016-01 Impact factor: 4.176