Literature DB >> 25620192

[Knee revision arthroplasty : cementless, metaphyseal fixation with sleeves].

H Graichen1, M Strauch, W Scior, R Morgan-Jones.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Primary and long-term fixation of cementless metaphyseal implants in knee revision arthroplasty cases with large bone defects. INDICATIONS: All tibial and femoral bone defects AORI grade 2 and 3. CONTRAINDICATIONS: Cases where stable uncemented fixation of the metaphyseal implant is not possible. SURGICAL TECHNIQUE: Pre-operative evaluation of the failure mode and implant fixation planning. After opening the joint, a synovectomy and mobilisation of medial and lateral recesses routinely performed. Testing of ligamentous stability and implant fixation undertaken before explantation. Removal of the bearing, femoral and tibial components with osteotomes or oscillating saw. Tibial diaphysis prepared with reamers, and metaphyseal preparation with broaches and stem extension. Placement of the metaphyseal broach for height with respect to the tibial joint line and rotational stability assessed. Tibial tray size and position determined before implanting the sleeve, stem and tray trial. The tibial trial provides a stable platform for analysis of the extension and flexion gaps with spacer blocks. Diaphyseal reamers used to identify the anterior femoral bow. Metaphyseal broaches used to achieve stable fixation up to the resection line marked on the handle. Distal femoral freshening cut in 5° or 7° of valgus made to accommodate distal augments as needed. Positioning of the 4-in-1 block with reconstruction of the posterior off-set and cutting for posterior augmentation. Selection of a box cut corresponding to the amount of constraint needed. Trial insert with appropriate, stem, sleeve, condylar femur and augments introduced. Bearing size, joint stability and ROM assessed. Patella alignment and the need for patella replacement or revision determined. The definitive implants are cemented at the joint surface, with metaphyseal sleeves and diaphyseal stems are uncemented. POSTOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT: Full weight bearing as tolerated, physiotherapy, lymph drainage and pain therapy are routine with no specific post-operative management required.
RESULTS: Between 2007 and 2011, 193 sleeves (119 tibial/74 femoral) were implanted in 121 aspetic knee revision arthroplasties. After average of 3.6 years they were analysed clinically and radiographically. The AKSS (American Knee Society Score) increased from 88 ± 18 to 147 ± 23 points (p < 0.01). ROM (range of motion) increased from 89 ± 6° to 114 ± 4°. Overall revision rate was 11.6 %. Only 4 sleeves revised for aseptic loosening (2 % of total sleeves). An additional 10 revisions performed mainly for infection (3.3 %) or ligament instability (3.3 %).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25620192     DOI: 10.1007/s00064-014-0333-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Oper Orthop Traumatol        ISSN: 0934-6694            Impact factor:   1.154


  6 in total

Review 1.  Fixation of revision TKA: a review of the literature.

Authors:  J Beckmann; C Lüring; R Springorum; F X Köck; J Grifka; M Tingart
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2010-09-07       Impact factor: 4.342

2.  Metal metaphyseal sleeves in revision total knee replacement.

Authors:  S Agarwal; A Azam; R Morgan-Jones
Journal:  Bone Joint J       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 5.082

3.  Biomechanical evaluation of different reconstructive techniques of proximal tibia in revision total knee arthroplasty: An in-vitro and finite element analysis.

Authors:  A Completo; R Duarte; F Fonseca; J A Simões; A Ramos; C Relvas
Journal:  Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)       Date:  2013-01-16       Impact factor: 2.063

4.  Insall Award paper. Why are total knee arthroplasties failing today?

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

5.  The effect of stem design on end-of-stem pain in revision total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Robert L Barrack; Tom Stanley; Mark Burt; Shelby Hopkins
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 4.757

6.  Causes of failure after total knee arthroplasty in osteoarthritis patients 55 years of age or younger.

Authors:  Kyung Tae Kim; Song Lee; Dong Oh Ko; Bong Soo Seo; Woo Shik Jung; Byung Kwon Chang
Journal:  Knee Surg Relat Res       Date:  2014-02-27
  6 in total
  6 in total

1.  Revision total knee arthroplasty with porous-coated metaphyseal sleeves provides radiographic ingrowth and stable fixation.

Authors:  Catherine J Fedorka; Antonia F Chen; Michael R Pagnotto; Lawrence S Crossett; Brian A Klatt
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2017-03-17       Impact factor: 4.342

2.  Mid-term results for metaphyseal sleeves in revision knee surgery.

Authors:  Carlos Martin-Hernandez; Luis Javier Floria-Arnal; Maria Pilar Muniesa-Herrero; Teresa Espallargas-Doñate; Jose Adolfo Blanco-Llorca; Melchor Guillen-Soriano; Miguel Ranera-Garcia
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2016-09-17       Impact factor: 4.342

Review 3.  [Joint infections of the hand].

Authors:  F Unglaub; M F Langer; J M Unglaub; B Hohendorff; L P Müller; P Hahn; S Löw; C K Spies
Journal:  Unfallchirurg       Date:  2016-11       Impact factor: 1.000

Review 4.  [Bone defect management in revision knee arthroplasty].

Authors:  Eric Röhner; Markus Heinecke; Georg Matziolis
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2021-10-15       Impact factor: 1.087

5.  Antibiotic bone cement's effect on infection rates in primary and revision total knee arthroplasties.

Authors:  Donald Kleppel; Jacob Stirton; Jiayong Liu; Nabil A Ebraheim
Journal:  World J Orthop       Date:  2017-12-18

6.  Balance and constraint in revision TKR: A classification for instability management.

Authors:  Rhidian Morgan-Jones; Heiko Graichen
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2021-02-04
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.