BACKGROUND: Varus-valgus constrained (VVC) implants are used for compromised ligamentous stability in revision total knee arthroplasties (TKAs). Mobile-bearing VVC implants may reduce rotational forces; yet, limited clinical data exist. The purpose of this study is to report mid-term risk of re-revision, complications, and clinical outcomes with a mobile-bearing VVC implant. METHODS: Three hundred thirty-seven patients (367 TKAs) who underwent revision TKA with a mobile-bearing VVC implant between 1999 and 2013 at a single institution were reviewed. Mean age at revision was 67 years. Mean follow-up was 4 years. The main indications for revision were aseptic loosening in 158 cases (43%), reimplantation after 2-stage exchange arthroplasty in 120 (33%), instability in 61 (17%), and other in 28 (7%). Clinical outcomes were assessed by Knee Society Scores, and survivorship was analyzed with death as the competing risk. RESULTS: The 5-year cumulative incidences of any re-revision or re-revision for aseptic loosening were 9% and 3%, respectively. Twenty-six knees (7%) were re-revised: 15 for infection, 6 for aseptic loosening, and 5 for other causes. There were 17 cases of irrigation and debridement, 10 cases of manipulations under anesthesia, and 9 cases of periprosthetic fractures. There were no bearing "spin-outs." The mean Knee Society Scores improved from 45 preoperatively to 77 at most recent follow-up (P < .001). CONCLUSION: The functional improvement and 5-year cumulative incidence of revision of a mobile-bearing VVC implant demonstrated acceptable outcomes with no unique complications related to the mobile-bearing construct. Additional follow-up will be needed to determine long-term implant survivorship.
BACKGROUND: Varus-valgus constrained (VVC) implants are used for compromised ligamentous stability in revision total knee arthroplasties (TKAs). Mobile-bearing VVC implants may reduce rotational forces; yet, limited clinical data exist. The purpose of this study is to report mid-term risk of re-revision, complications, and clinical outcomes with a mobile-bearing VVC implant. METHODS: Three hundred thirty-seven patients (367 TKAs) who underwent revision TKA with a mobile-bearing VVC implant between 1999 and 2013 at a single institution were reviewed. Mean age at revision was 67 years. Mean follow-up was 4 years. The main indications for revision were aseptic loosening in 158 cases (43%), reimplantation after 2-stage exchange arthroplasty in 120 (33%), instability in 61 (17%), and other in 28 (7%). Clinical outcomes were assessed by Knee Society Scores, and survivorship was analyzed with death as the competing risk. RESULTS: The 5-year cumulative incidences of any re-revision or re-revision for aseptic loosening were 9% and 3%, respectively. Twenty-six knees (7%) were re-revised: 15 for infection, 6 for aseptic loosening, and 5 for other causes. There were 17 cases of irrigation and debridement, 10 cases of manipulations under anesthesia, and 9 cases of periprosthetic fractures. There were no bearing "spin-outs." The mean Knee Society Scores improved from 45 preoperatively to 77 at most recent follow-up (P < .001). CONCLUSION: The functional improvement and 5-year cumulative incidence of revision of a mobile-bearing VVC implant demonstrated acceptable outcomes with no unique complications related to the mobile-bearing construct. Additional follow-up will be needed to determine long-term implant survivorship.