Literature DB >> 21678098

Cementless revision TKA with bone grafting of osseous defects restores bone stock with a low revision rate at 4 to 10 years.

S A Hanna1, W J S Aston, N J de Roeck, A Gough-Palmer, D P Powles.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Addressing bone loss in revision TKA is challenging despite the array of options to reconstruct the deficient bone. Biologic reconstruction using morselized loosely-packed bone graft potentially allows for augmentation of residual bone stock while offering physiologic load transfer. However it is unclear whether the reconstructions are durable. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We therefore sought to determine (1) survivorship and complications, (2) function, and (3) radiographic findings of cementless revision TKA in combination with loosely-packed morselized bone graft to reconstruct osseous defects at revision TKA. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 56 patients who had undergone revision TKAs using cementless long-stemmed components in combination with morselized loose bone graft at our institution. There were 26 men and 30 women with a mean age of 68.3 years (range, 56-89 years). Patients were followed to assess symptoms and function and to detect radiographic loosening, component migration, and graft incorporation. The minimum followup was 4 years (mean, 7.3 years; range, 4-10 years).
RESULTS: Cumulative prosthesis survival, with revision as an end point, was 98% at 10 years. The mean Oxford Knee Scores improved from 21 (36%) preoperatively to 41 (68%) at final followup. Five patients (9%) had reoperations for complications.
CONCLUSIONS: Our observations suggest this technique is reproducible and obviates the need for excessive bone resection, use of large metal augments, mass allografts, or custom prostheses. It allows for bone stock to be reconstructed reliably with durable midterm component fixation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21678098      PMCID: PMC3183215          DOI: 10.1007/s11999-011-1938-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res        ISSN: 0009-921X            Impact factor:   4.176


  37 in total

1.  The use of methylmethacrylate in primary total knee replacements with large tibial defects.

Authors:  P A Lotke; R Y Wong; M L Ecker
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1991-09       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  Radiolucent lines: a question of nomenclature.

Authors:  M A Freeman
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  1999-01       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.  Tibial wedge augmentation for bone deficiency in total knee arthroplasty. A followup study.

Authors:  M W Pagnano; R T Trousdale; J A Rand
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1995-12       Impact factor: 4.176

5.  Screw and cement fixation of large defects in total knee arthroplasty. A sequel.

Authors:  M A Ritter; E M Keating; P M Faris
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  1993-02       Impact factor: 4.757

6.  Impacted morsellized allograft and cement for revision total knee arthroplasty: a preliminary report of 3 cases.

Authors:  G Ullmark; L Hovelius
Journal:  Acta Orthop Scand       Date:  1996-02

Review 7.  Factors affecting bone graft incorporation.

Authors:  S Stevenson; S E Emery; V M Goldberg
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1996-03       Impact factor: 4.176

8.  Human bone and tissue allografts. Preparation and safety.

Authors:  B E Buck; T I Malinin
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1994-06       Impact factor: 4.176

9.  The natural history of tibial radiolucent lines in a proximally cemented stemmed total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  S Smith; V S Naima; M A Freeman
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  1999-01       Impact factor: 4.757

10.  Repairing minor bone defects: augmentation & autograft.

Authors:  D A Dennis
Journal:  Orthopedics       Date:  1998-09       Impact factor: 1.390

View more
  10 in total

1.  Metaphyseal bone loss in revision knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Danielle Y Ponzio; Matthew S Austin
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.  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.  Preliminary results of managing large medial tibial defects in primary total knee arthroplasty: autogenous morcellised bone graft.

Authors:  Takehiko Sugita; Toshimi Aizawa; Naohisa Miyatake; Akira Sasaki; Masayuki Kamimura; Atsushi Takahashi
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2016-11-21       Impact factor: 3.075

Review 5.  Bone loss in aseptic revision total knee arthroplasty: management and outcomes.

Authors:  Thomas Bieganowski; Daniel B Buchalter; Vivek Singh; John J Mercuri; Vinay K Aggarwal; Joshua C Rozell; Ran Schwarzkopf
Journal:  Knee Surg Relat Res       Date:  2022-06-20

6.  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

7.  Tibial bone loss in revision TKA: Options for management without sleeves and cones -a schematic review.

Authors:  Sibin Surendran; P Gopinathan
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2021-01-17

Review 8.  Management of bone loss in revision total knee arthroplasty: therapeutic options and results.

Authors:  E Carlos Rodríguez-Merchán; Primitivo Gómez-Cardero; Carlos A Encinas-Ullán
Journal:  EFORT Open Rev       Date:  2021-11-19

Review 9.  Patient-reported outcome measures following revision knee replacement: a review of PROM instrument utilisation and measurement properties using the COSMIN checklist.

Authors:  Shiraz A Sabah; Elizabeth A Hedge; Simon G F Abram; Abtin Alvand; Andrew J Price; Sally Hopewell
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2021-10-21       Impact factor: 2.692

10.  Proximal tibial replacement in revision knee arthroplasty for non-oncologic indications.

Authors:  Brianna Fram; Eric B Smith; Gregory K Deirmengian; John A Abraham; John Strony; Michael B Cross; Danielle Y Ponzio
Journal:  Arthroplast Today       Date:  2020-01-28
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.