Literature DB >> 25381419

Why knee replacements fail in 2013: patient, surgeon, or implant?

A V Lombardi1, K R Berend1, J B Adams1.   

Abstract

Previous studies of failure mechanisms leading to revision total knee replacement (TKR) performed between 1986 and 2000 determined that many failed early, with a disproportionate amount accounted for by infection and implant-associated factors including wear, loosening and instability. Since then, efforts have been made to improve implant performance and instruct surgeons in best practice. Recently our centre participated in a multi-centre evaluation of 844 revision TKRs from 2010 to 2011. The purpose was to report a detailed analysis of failure mechanisms over time and to see if failure modes have changed over the past 10 to 15 years. Aseptic loosening was the predominant mechanism of failure (31.2%), followed by instability (18.7%), infection (16.2%), polyethylene wear (10.0%), arthrofibrosis (6.9%) and malalignment (6.6%). The mean time to failure was 5.9 years (ten days to 31 years), 35.3% of all revisions occurred at less than two years, and 60.2% in the first five years. With improvements in implant and polyethylene manufacture, polyethylene wear is no longer a leading cause of failure. Early mechanisms of failure are primarily technical errors. In addition to improving implant longevity, industry and surgeons must work together to decrease these technical errors. All reports on failure of TKR contain patients with unexplained pain who not infrequently have unmet expectations. Surgeons must work to achieve realistic patient expectations pre-operatively, and therefore, improve patient satisfaction post-operatively. ©2014 The British Editorial Society of Bone & Joint Surgery.

Entities:  

Keywords:  etiology; failure; patient satisfaction; revision; total knee arthroplasty

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25381419     DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.96B11.34350

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Bone Joint J        ISSN: 2049-4394            Impact factor:   5.082


  44 in total

1.  The use of spacers (static and mobile) in infection knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Luca Mazzucchelli; Federica Rosso; Antongiulio Marmotti; Davide Edoardo Bonasia; Matteo Bruzzone; Roberto Rossi
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2015-12

Review 2.  Imaging near orthopedic hardware.

Authors:  Matthew F Koff; Alissa J Burge; Kevin M Koch; Hollis G Potter
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2017-02-02       Impact factor: 4.813

3.  Is there a rationale to use highly cross-linked polyethylene in posterior-stabilized total knee arthroplasty?

Authors:  Lisa Renner; Martin Faschingbauer; Friedrich Boettner
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2015-04

4.  Over-voluming predicted by pre-operative planning in 24% of total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Simon Marmor; Eric Renault; Jeremy Valluy; Mo Saffarini
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2018-06-02       Impact factor: 4.342

5.  The superficial medial collateral ligament is the primary medial restraint to knee laxity after cruciate-retaining or posterior-stabilised total knee arthroplasty: effects of implant type and partial release.

Authors:  Kiron K Athwal; Hadi El Daou; Christoph Kittl; Andrew J Davies; David J Deehan; Andrew A Amis
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2015-10-30       Impact factor: 4.342

6.  Lateral unicompartmental knee replacement: a systematic review of reasons for failure.

Authors:  Lukas Ernstbrunner; Mohamed A Imam; Octavian Andronic; Tabea Perz; Karl Wieser; Sandro F Fucentese
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2017-10-13       Impact factor: 3.075

7.  Good clinical and radiological results of total knee arthroplasty using varus valgus constrained or rotating hinge implants in ligamentous laxity.

Authors:  Eric Röhner; Kathrin Benad; Timo Zippelius; Nadja Kloss; Benjamin Jacob; Julia Kirschberg; Georg Matziolis
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2018-11-20       Impact factor: 4.342

8.  Damage in total knee replacements from mechanical overload.

Authors:  William F Zimmerman; Mark A Miller; Richard J Cleary; Timothy H Izant; Kenneth A Mann
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2016-05-20       Impact factor: 2.712

9.  Have the Causes of Revision for Total and Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasties Changed During the Past Two Decades?

Authors:  Gro S Dyrhovden; Stein Håkon L Lygre; Mona Badawy; Øystein Gøthesen; Ove Furnes
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2017-03-15       Impact factor: 4.176

10.  Surgeon-defined assessment is a poor predictor of knee balance in total knee arthroplasty: a prospective, multicenter study.

Authors:  Samuel J MacDessi; Jil A Wood; Ashish D Diwan; Ian A Harris
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2020-03-13       Impact factor: 4.342

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.