Literature DB >> 3335109

Revision total knee arthroplasty for aseptic failure.

M A Jacobs1, D S Hungerford, K A Krackow, D W Lennox.   

Abstract

Twenty-four patients with 28 failed total knee arthroplasties replaced with porous-coated anatomic (PCA) primary or revision components were studied over a two- to four-year period. Overall, there were 68% good and excellent results and three failures. When evaluated according to mode of failure, 83% of the patients who had a definable mechanical problem achieved good or excellent results. Patients who had revision operations for incapacitating pain or in whom no clearly definable problem could be ascertained before operation were not significantly improved. Complications that led to poor results were deep sepsis, wound necrosis, and extensor mechanism abnormalities.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1988        PMID: 3335109

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


  13 in total

Review 1.  Causes of failure and etiology of painful primary total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Romain Seil; Dietrich Pape
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2011-08-11       Impact factor: 4.342

2.  Reconstructive surgery of the lower extremity.

Authors:  R J Claridge
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  1990-03       Impact factor: 3.275

3.  [TKA revision of semiconstraint components using the 3-step technique].

Authors:  R Hube; G Matziolis; T Kalteis; H O Mayr
Journal:  Oper Orthop Traumatol       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 1.154

4.  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

5.  Reason for revision TKA predicts clinical outcome: prospective evaluation of 150 consecutive patients with 2-years followup.

Authors:  Robin W T M van Kempen; Janneke J P Schimmel; Gijs G van Hellemondt; Hilde Vandenneucker; Ate B Wymenga
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2013-03-30       Impact factor: 4.176

6.  Revision total knee arthroplasty infection: incidence and predictors.

Authors:  S M Javad Mortazavi; Justin Schwartzenberger; Matthew S Austin; James J Purtill; Javad Parvizi
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 4.176

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

Authors:  Sun-Chul Hwang; Jae-Yeon Kong; Dae-Cheol Nam; Dong-Hee Kim; Hyung-Bin Park; Soon-Taek Jeong; Se-Hyun Cho
Journal:  Clin Orthop Surg       Date:  2010-05-04

8.  Failure following revision total knee arthroplasty: infection is the major cause.

Authors:  S M Javad Mortazavi; Jeremy Molligan; Matthew S Austin; James J Purtill; William J Hozack; Javad Parvizi
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2010-10-21       Impact factor: 3.075

9.  Painful knee arthroplasty: current practice.

Authors:  Umberto Cottino; Federica Rosso; Antonio Pastrone; Federico Dettoni; Roberto Rossi; Matteo Bruzzone
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2015-12

10.  Revision TKA with a condylar constrained prosthesis using metaphyseal and surface cementation: a minimum 6-year follow-up analysis.

Authors:  Pablo Sanz-Ruiz; Manuel Villanueva-Martínez; Jose Antonio Matas-Diez; Javier Vaquero-Martín
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2015-02-25       Impact factor: 2.362

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.