Literature DB >> 35780426

Bone defect classifications in revision total knee arthroplasty, their reliability and utility: a systematic review.

Yasim Khan1,2, Sumit Arora3, Abhishek Kashyap3, Mohit Kumar Patralekh4, Lalit Maini3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: There are various classification systems described in the literature for managing bone defects in revision knee arthroplasty (RTKA). We analysed the reliability and usefulness of these classification systems. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) To review and critique the various classification systems proposed for bone loss in RTKA. (2) Among all the proposed classifications which one is the most commonly used by surgeons to report their results. (3) What is the reliability of various bone defect classification systems for RTKA. In this review, we have assessed the studies validating those classifications with a detailed description of the limitations and the proposed modifications.
METHODS: This systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. Pubmed/Medline, CINAHL, EMBASE, Scopus, Cochrane databases and Web of Science databases were searched using multiple search terms and MeSH terms where possible. Studies meeting inclusion criteria were assessed for statistical parameters of reliability of a classification system.
RESULTS: We found 16 classification systems for bone defects in RTKA. Six studies were found evaluating a classification system with reporting their reliability parameters. Fifty-four studies were found which classified bone loss using AORI classification in their series. AORI classification is most commonly reported for classifying bone defects. Type T2B and F2B are the most common bone defects in RTKA. The average kappa value for AORI classification for femoral bone loss was 0.38 (0.27-0.50) and 0.76 (0.63-1) for tibial bone loss assessment.
CONCLUSION: None of the available classification systems is reliably established in determining the bone loss and treatment plans in RTKA. Among all, AORI classification is the most widely used system in clinical practice. The reliability of AORI Classification is fair for femoral bone loss and substantial for tibial bone loss.
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.

Entities:  

Keywords:  AORI classification; Bone defects; Classification; Knee replacement; Revision knee arthroplasty

Year:  2022        PMID: 35780426     DOI: 10.1007/s00402-022-04517-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg        ISSN: 0936-8051            Impact factor:   3.067


  42 in total

1.  Outcomes of a technique combining diaphyseal impaction grafting and metaphyseal cones for severe bone loss in revision total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Nicholas A Bedard; Robert A Cates; David G Lewallen; Rafael J Sierra; Arlen D Hanssen; Daniel J Berry; Matthew P Abdel
Journal:  Bone Joint J       Date:  2020-06       Impact factor: 5.082

2.  Revision total knee arthroplasty for major osteolysis.

Authors:  R Stephen J Burnett; James A Keeney; William J Maloney; John C Clohisy
Journal:  Iowa Orthop J       Date:  2009

3.  Tantalum cones and bone defects in revision total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  F Boureau; S Putman; A Arnould; G Dereudre; H Migaud; G Pasquier
Journal:  Orthop Traumatol Surg Res       Date:  2015-03-06       Impact factor: 2.256

4.  Clinical and radiological results of a stemmed medial pivot revision implant in aseptic total knee revision arthroplasty.

Authors:  Eugenio Vecchini; Mattia Berti; Gian Mario Micheloni; Tommaso Maluta; Bruno Magnan; Matteo Ricci
Journal:  Knee       Date:  2020-06-27       Impact factor: 2.199

5.  Metaphyseal sleeves in revision total knee arthroplasty: Minimum seven-year follow-up study.

Authors:  Sanjeev Agarwal; Devdatta Suhas Neogi; Rhidian Morgan-Jones
Journal:  Knee       Date:  2018-10-05       Impact factor: 2.199

6.  Influence of stems and metaphyseal sleeve on primary stability of cementless revision tibial trays used to reconstruct AORI IIB defects.

Authors:  Maged Awadalla; Rami M A Al-Dirini; Dermot O'Rourke; Lucian B Solomon; Mark Heldreth; Paul Rullkoetter; Mark Taylor
Journal:  J Orthop Res       Date:  2019-04-07       Impact factor: 3.494

7.  What Is the Reliability of a New Classification for Bone Defects in Revision TKA Based on Preoperative Radiographs?

Authors:  Maartje Belt; Katrijn Smulders; Albert van Houten; Ate Wymenga; Petra Heesterbeek; Gijs van Hellemondt
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2020-09       Impact factor: 4.176

8.  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

9.  The epidemiology of revision total knee arthroplasty in the United States.

Authors:  Kevin J Bozic; Steven M Kurtz; Edmund Lau; Kevin Ong; Vanessa Chiu; Thomas P Vail; Harry E Rubash; Daniel J Berry
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2009-06-25       Impact factor: 4.176

10.  Correlation of tibial bone defect shape with patient demographics following total knee revision.

Authors:  Madhav Bole; Matthew Teeter; Brent A Lanting; James L Howard
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2018-03-27
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.