Literature DB >> 3980534

Stemmed revision arthroplasty for aseptic loosening of total knee replacement.

K C Bertin, M A Freeman, K M Samuelson, S S Ratcliffe, R C Todd.   

Abstract

Fifty-three failed knee replacements were revised using minimally constrained implants with smooth uncemented intramedullary stems and metal-backed tibial components. Polymethylmethacrylate was used only to replace lost bone near the surface of the implant. Excluding four knees which had serious postoperative complications, 91% had successful relief of pain, 84% had over 90 degrees of movement and 80% could walk for more than 30 minutes. Review of the radiographs showed that there were no progressive lucencies at the interface between bone and cement, and no subsidence of components or changes in alignment. At the uncemented stem-to-bone interface, thin white lines developed near the metal, and their significance is discussed. This revision technique is an effective treatment for aseptic failure of primary total knee arthroplasty.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1985        PMID: 3980534

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br        ISSN: 0301-620X


  17 in total

Review 1.  Fixation of revision TKA: a review of the literature.

Authors:  J Beckmann; C Lüring; R Springorum; F X Köck; J Grifka; M Tingart
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2010-09-07       Impact factor: 4.342

2.  The role of offset stems in revision knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Andrea Baldini; Giovanni Balato; Vincenzo Franceschini
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2015-12

3.  Extent of vertical cementing as a predictive factor for radiolucency in revision total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Du Hyun Ro; Yool Cho; Sahnghoon Lee; Kee Yun Chung; Seong Hwan Kim; Young Min Lee; Joon Kyu Lee; Myung Chul Lee
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2016-02-01       Impact factor: 4.342

4.  Modified hybrid stem fixation in revision TKA is durable at 2 to 10 years.

Authors:  Alexander P Sah; Sanjai Shukla; Craig J Della Valle; Aaron G Rosenberg; Wayne G Paprosky
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2010-09-28       Impact factor: 4.176

5.  Results of press-fit stems in revision knee arthroplasties.

Authors:  Gavin C Wood; Douglas D R Naudie; Steven J MacDonald; Richard W McCalden; Robert B Bourne
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2008-11-26       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 6.  Fixation of stem in revision of total knee arthroplasty: cemented versus cementless-a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Changyao Wang; Tilman Pfitzner; Philipp von Roth; Hermann O Mayr; Michael Sostheim; Robert Hube
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2015-12-19       Impact factor: 4.342

7.  [Revision prosthetic of the knee joint. The influence of a navigation system on the alignment and reconstruction of the joint line].

Authors:  L Perlick; C Lüring; M Tingart; J Grifka; H Bäthis
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 1.087

8.  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

9.  Reason for revision influences early patient outcomes after aseptic knee revision.

Authors:  Paul Baker; Paul Cowling; Steven Kurtz; Simon Jameson; Paul Gregg; David Deehan
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2012-02-22       Impact factor: 4.176

10.  Are cementless stems more durable than cemented stems in two-stage revisions of infected total knee arthroplasties?

Authors:  Paul K Edwards; Thomas K Fehring; William G Hamilton; Brett Perricelli; Walter B Beaver; Susan M Odum
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2014-01       Impact factor: 4.176

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.