Ittai Shichman1,2, Christian T Oakley1, Geidily Beaton1, Utkarsh Anil1, Nimrod Snir2, Joshua Rozell1, Morteza Meftah1, Ran Schwarzkopf3. 1. Division of Adult Reconstruction, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, NYU Langone Health, 301 East 17th Street, New York, NY, 10003, USA. 2. Division of Orthopedic Surgery, Tel-Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Tel-Aviv, Israel. 3. Division of Adult Reconstruction, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, NYU Langone Health, 301 East 17th Street, New York, NY, 10003, USA. Ran.Schwarzkopf@nyulangone.org.
Abstract
AIM: Posterior stabilized (PS) and varus valgus constrained (VVC) knee polyethylene liners have been shown to confer excellent long-term functional results following revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA). The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes of patients who underwent rTKA using either a PS or VVC liner. METHODS: A retrospective comparative study of 314 rTKA with either PS or VVC liner and a minimum follow-up time of two years was conducted. Patient demographics, complications, readmissions, and re-revision etiology and rates were compared between groups. Kaplan-Meier survivorship analysis was performed to estimate freedom from all-cause revision. RESULTS: Hospital LOS (3.41 ± 2.49 vs. 3.34 ± 1.93 days, p = 0.793) and discharge disposition (p = 0.418) did not significantly differ between groups. At a mean follow-up of 3.55 ± 1.60 years, the proportion of patients undergoing re-revision did not significantly differ (19.1% vs. 18.7%, p = 0.929). In subgroup analysis of re-revision causes, the VVC cohort had superior survival from re-revision due to instability compared to the PS cohort (97.8% vs. 89.4%, p = 0.003). Freedom from re-revision due to aseptic loosening did not significantly differ between groups (85.2% vs. 78.8%, p = 0.436). Improvements in range of motion (ROM) from preoperative to latest follow-up were similar as well. CONCLUSIONS: PS and VVC liners confer similar survivorship, complication rates, and overall knee ROM in rTKA. VVC liners were not associated with increased postoperative aseptic loosening and demonstrated superior freedom from re-revision due to instability. Future studies with longer follow-up are warranted to better determine significant differences in clinical outcomes between the two bearing options. LEVEL III EVIDENCE: Retrospective Cohort Study.
AIM: Posterior stabilized (PS) and varus valgus constrained (VVC) knee polyethylene liners have been shown to confer excellent long-term functional results following revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA). The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes of patients who underwent rTKA using either a PS or VVC liner. METHODS: A retrospective comparative study of 314 rTKA with either PS or VVC liner and a minimum follow-up time of two years was conducted. Patient demographics, complications, readmissions, and re-revision etiology and rates were compared between groups. Kaplan-Meier survivorship analysis was performed to estimate freedom from all-cause revision. RESULTS: Hospital LOS (3.41 ± 2.49 vs. 3.34 ± 1.93 days, p = 0.793) and discharge disposition (p = 0.418) did not significantly differ between groups. At a mean follow-up of 3.55 ± 1.60 years, the proportion of patients undergoing re-revision did not significantly differ (19.1% vs. 18.7%, p = 0.929). In subgroup analysis of re-revision causes, the VVC cohort had superior survival from re-revision due to instability compared to the PS cohort (97.8% vs. 89.4%, p = 0.003). Freedom from re-revision due to aseptic loosening did not significantly differ between groups (85.2% vs. 78.8%, p = 0.436). Improvements in range of motion (ROM) from preoperative to latest follow-up were similar as well. CONCLUSIONS: PS and VVC liners confer similar survivorship, complication rates, and overall knee ROM in rTKA. VVC liners were not associated with increased postoperative aseptic loosening and demonstrated superior freedom from re-revision due to instability. Future studies with longer follow-up are warranted to better determine significant differences in clinical outcomes between the two bearing options. LEVEL III EVIDENCE: Retrospective Cohort Study.
Authors: Mark M Dolan; Natalie H Kelly; Joseph T Nguyen; Timothy M Wright; Steven B Haas Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2011-01 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Cynthia A Kahlenberg; Brian Chalmers; Hyung Jin Sun; David J Mayman; Geoffrey H Westrich; Steven B Haas; Peter K Sculco Journal: J Knee Surg Date: 2021-02-22 Impact factor: 2.757
Authors: Chadwick B Hampton; Zachary P Berliner; Joseph T Nguyen; Logan Mendez; Sarah S Smith; Amethia D Joseph; Douglas E Padgett; José A Rodriguez Journal: J Arthroplasty Date: 2020-02-24 Impact factor: 4.757
Authors: In Jun Koh; Christen E Chalmers; Charles C Lin; Soo Bin Park; Michelle H McGarry; Thay Q Lee Journal: Arch Orthop Trauma Surg Date: 2020-10-10 Impact factor: 3.067