Literature DB >> 20514269

Revision total knee arthroplasty with a cemented posterior stabilized, condylar constrained or fully constrained prosthesis: a minimum 2-year follow-up analysis.

Sun-Chul Hwang1, Jae-Yeon Kong, Dae-Cheol Nam, Dong-Hee Kim, Hyung-Bin Park, Soon-Taek Jeong, Se-Hyun Cho.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The clinical and radiological outcomes of revision total knee arthroplasty with a cemented posterior stabilized (PS), condylar constrained knee (CCK) or a fully constrained rotating hinge knee (RHK) prosthesis were evaluated.
METHODS: This study reviewed the clinical and radiological results of 36 revision total knee arthroplasties with a cemented PS, CCK, and RHK prosthesis in 8, 25, and 13 cases, respectively, performed between 1998 and 2006. The mean follow-up period was 30 months (range, 24 to 100 months). The reason for the revision was aseptic loosening of one or both components in 15, an infected total knee in 18 and a periprosthetic fracture in 3 knees. The average age of the patients at the time of the revision was 65 years (range, 58 to 83 years). The original diagnosis for all primary total knee arthroplasties was osteoarthritis except for one case of a Charcot joint. All revision prostheses were fixed with cement. The bone deficiencies were grafted with a cancellous allograft in the contained defect and cortical allograft fixed with a plate and screws in the noncontained defect. A medial gastrocnemius flap was needed to cover the wound dehiscence in 6 of the 18 infected cases.
RESULTS: The mean Knee Society knee score improved from 28 (range, 5 to 43) to 83 (range, 55 to 94), (p < 0.001) and the mean Knee Society function score improved from 42 (range, 10 to 66) to 82 (range, 60 to 95), (p < 0.001) at the final follow-up. Good or excellent outcomes were obtained in 82% of knees. There were 5 complications (an extensor mechanism rupture in 3 and recurrence of infection in 2 cases). Three cases of an extensor mechanism defect (two ruptures of ligamentum patellae and one patellectomy) were managed by the RHK prosthesis to provide locking stability in the heel strike and push off phases, and two cases of recurrent infection used an antibiotic impregnated cement spacer. The radiological tibiofemoral alignment improved from 1.7 degrees varus to 3.0 degrees valgus in average. Radiolucent lines were observed in 18% of the knees without progressive osteolysis.
CONCLUSIONS: Revision total knee requires a more constrained prosthesis than primary total knee arthroplasty because of the ligamentous instability and bony defect. This short to midterm follow-up analysis demonstrated that a well planned and precisely executed revision can reduce pain and improve the knee function significantly. Infected cases showed as good a result as those with aseptic loosening through the use of antibiotics-impregnated cement beads and proper soft tissue coverage with a medial gastrocnemius flap.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Prosthesis design; Revision; Total knee replacement; Treatment outcome

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20514269      PMCID: PMC2867196          DOI: 10.4055/cios.2010.2.2.112

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Orthop Surg        ISSN: 2005-291X


  25 in total

1.  A quantitative evaluation of periprosthetic bone-remodeling after cementless total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  C A Engh; T F McGovern; J D Bobyn; W H Harris
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1992-08       Impact factor: 5.284

2.  Revision total knee arthroplasty. A survival analysis.

Authors:  M A Ritter; L E Eizember; R W Fechtman; E M Keating; P M Faris
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  1991-12       Impact factor: 4.757

3.  The Knee Society total knee arthroplasty roentgenographic evaluation and scoring system.

Authors:  F C Ewald
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1989-11       Impact factor: 4.176

4.  The results of revision total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  V M Goldberg; M P Figgie; H E Figgie; M Sobel
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1988-01       Impact factor: 4.176

5.  The incorporation of tibial allografts in total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  A H Wilde; M S Schickendantz; B N Stulberg; R T Go
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1990-07       Impact factor: 5.284

6.  Bone grafting and noncemented revision arthroplasty of the knee.

Authors:  K M Samuelson
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1988-01       Impact factor: 4.176

7.  Results of revision total knee arthroplasties using condylar prostheses. A review of fifty knees.

Authors:  J A Rand; R S Bryan
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1988-06       Impact factor: 5.284

8.  Cementless revision total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  L A Whiteside
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1993-01       Impact factor: 4.176

9.  Reoperation after condylar revision total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  M J Stuart; J E Larson; B F Morrey
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1993-01       Impact factor: 4.176

10.  Clinical results of total knee revision using the Total Condylar III prosthesis.

Authors:  A G Rosenberg; J J Verner; J O Galante
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1991-12       Impact factor: 4.176

View more
  21 in total

1.  Level of constraint in revision knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Pier Francesco Indelli; Nick Giori; William Maloney
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2015-12

2.  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

3.  Is the revision of a primary TKA really as easy and safe as the revision of a primary UKA?

Authors:  Kevin Staats; Christian Merle; Tom Schmidt-Braekling; Friedrich Boettner; Reinhard Windhager; Wenzel Waldstein
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2016-12

4.  Factors affecting the choice of constrained prostheses when performing revision total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Cheol Hee Park; Jung Kwon Bae; Sang Jun Song
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2018-10-16       Impact factor: 3.075

5.  Poorer survival after a primary implant during revision total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Marrigje F Meijer; Inge H F Reininga; Alexander L Boerboom; Martin Stevens; Sjoerd K Bulstra
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2012-12-21       Impact factor: 3.075

6.  Predictive factors for failure after total knee replacement revision.

Authors:  Rafael Luque; Belen Rizo; Antonio Urda; Rodrigo Garcia-Crespo; Enrique Moro; Fernando Marco; Luis López-Duran
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2014-01-09       Impact factor: 3.075

7.  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

8.  Mid-term survival following primary hinged total knee replacement is good irrespective of the indication for surgery.

Authors:  Paul Baker; Rebecca Critchley; Andrew Gray; Simon Jameson; Paul Gregg; Andrew Port; David Deehan
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2012-12-14       Impact factor: 4.342

9.  Outcome of knee revisions for osteoarthritis and inflammatory arthritis with postero-stabilized arthroplasties: a mean ten-year follow-up with 90 knee revisions.

Authors:  Philippe Hernigou; Arnaud Dubory; Damien Potage; François Roubineau; Charles Henri Flouzat-Lachaniette
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2016-10-27       Impact factor: 3.075

10.  Clinical and Functional Outcomes: Primary Constrained Condylar Knee Arthroplasty Compared With Posterior Stabilized Knee Arthroplasty.

Authors:  Ken Lee Puah; Hwei Chi Chong; Leon Siang Shen Foo; Ngai-Nung Lo; Seng-Jin Yeo
Journal:  J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev       Date:  2018-02-07
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.