Literature DB >> 34654936

[Bone defect management in revision knee arthroplasty].

Eric Röhner1,2, Markus Heinecke3, Georg Matziolis3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In 2019, 124,677 primary total knee arthroplasties and 14,462 revision TKA were performed in Germany. This corresponds to a percentage of 11.6%. According to the EPRD, the probability of further revision surgery after the first exchange operation is around 15%. REASONS: The most common reason for revision surgery is still aseptic loosening with 23.9%. One possible cause could be the difficult fixation of revision total knee arthroplasty. If the bone quality is insufficient, cement-free or cemented diaphyseal anchoring of the prosthesis is often not sufficient to ensure adequate fixation. As a rule, defect management and fixation of the implant are based on the defect situation and the quality of the bone. Therefore, revision total knee arthroplasties based on the fixation principle of Jones et al. should be sufficiently fixed in at least 2 zones. TECHNIQUES: There are various techniques for stable anchoring of revision implants. In addition to cemented or cementless stem anchoring, bone allografts, wedges and blocks and, in recent years, cones and sleeves have become increasingly popular. In the present work, the various options for a stable anchoring of revision implants are presented and evaluated. In addition, the clinical and radiological outcome of cones vs. sleeves in bone defect management in revision knee arthroplasty will be compared.
© 2021. Springer Medizin Verlag GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Allografts; Bone cement; Prosthesis fixation; Revision surgery; Total knee replacement

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34654936     DOI: 10.1007/s00132-021-04181-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Orthopade        ISSN: 0085-4530            Impact factor:   1.087


  39 in total

Review 1.  Management of bone defects in revision total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Brian K Daines; Douglas A Dennis
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2012-06-20       Impact factor: 5.284

Review 2.  Treatment of severe bone defects during revision total knee arthroplasty with structural allografts and porous metal cones-a systematic review.

Authors:  Nicholas A Beckmann; Sebastian Mueller; Matthias Gondan; Sebastian Jaeger; Tobias Reiner; Rudi G Bitsch
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2014-10-20       Impact factor: 4.757

3.  Survivorship of Metaphyseal Sleeves in Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty.

Authors:  Brian P Chalmers; Nicholas M Desy; Mark W Pagnano; Robert T Trousdale; Michael J Taunton
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2016-12-14       Impact factor: 4.757

4.  The Use of Tantalum Metaphyseal Cones for the Management of Severe Bone Defects in Septic Knee Revision.

Authors:  Giorgio Burastero; Luca Cavagnaro; Francesco Chiarlone; Mattia Alessio-Mazzola; Giuliana Carrega; Lamberto Felli
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2018-08-30       Impact factor: 4.757

5.  Clinical and radiological results of femoral head structural allograft for severe bone defects in revision TKA--a minimum 8-year follow-up.

Authors:  Churl Hong Chun; Jeong Woo Kim; Sung Hun Kim; Bong Gyu Kim; Keun Churl Chun; Kwang Mee Kim
Journal:  Knee       Date:  2013-05-09       Impact factor: 2.199

6.  Use of screws and cement in revision TKA with primary or revision specific prosthesis with up to 17 years followup.

Authors:  Michael E Berend; Merrill A Ritter; E Michael Keating; Michael D Jackson; Kenneth E Davis; Robert A Malinzak
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2014-07-25       Impact factor: 4.757

Review 7.  Are Trabecular Metal Cones a Valid Option to Treat Metaphyseal Bone Defects in Complex Primary and Revision Knee Arthroplasty?

Authors:  Tommaso Bonanzinga; Thorsten Gehrke; Akos Zahar; Stefano Zaffagnini; Maurilio Marcacci; Carl Haasper
Journal:  Joints       Date:  2017-12-14

8.  Management of bone loss: structural grafts in revision total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  David Backstein; Oleg Safir; Allan Gross
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2006-05       Impact factor: 4.176

9.  Limitations of structural allograft in revision total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Ryan D Bauman; David G Lewallen; Arlen D Hanssen
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2009-01-07       Impact factor: 4.176

10.  A prospective study on outcome of patient-specific cones in revision knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Alexander A Cherny; Anton N Kovalenko; Taras A Kulyaba; Nikolai N Kornilov
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2021-07-15       Impact factor: 3.067

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.