Literature DB >> 9917665

Revision of failed cementless total knee implants with cement.

T K Fehring, W L Griffin.   

Abstract

Between 1986 and 1996, 268 revision total knee replacements were performed. Revisions for aseptic loosening were reviewed prospectively. Sixty-three patients had implants revised for aseptic loosening. Thirty-six of the patients had revisions of cemented constructs, whereas 27 of the patients had revisions of cementless constructs. The average time before revision for the cemented group was 86 months. The average time to revision for the cementless group was only 43 months. Fifty-two percent of the patients in the cementless group had revision of their implants within 2 years of their index arthroplasty. The average pain free interval for the cementless group was only 11 months with 63% of the patients having no pain relief after their index arthroplasty. The average postoperative score for the cementless group was 88, whereas the average postoperative score for the cemented group was 82. Revision of failed cementless total knee implants with cement is a reliable procedure. Results are similar to those of cemented knees revised with cement.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9917665     DOI: 10.1097/00003086-199811000-00007

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


  8 in total

1.  High rate of infection control with one-stage revision of septic knee prostheses excluding MRSA and MRSE.

Authors:  Joachim Singer; Andreas Merz; Lars Frommelt; Bernd Fink
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2011-11-12       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  [Logistic requirements and biopsy of periprosthetic infections: what should be taken into consideration?].

Authors:  B Fink; P Schäfer; L Frommelt
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 1.087

3.  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

4.  Patient outcome following revision total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Puyi Sheng; Matti Lehto; Matti Kataja; Pekka Halonen; Teemu Moilanen; Jorma Pajamäki
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2003-11-20       Impact factor: 3.075

5.  Preoperative hyponatremia is an independent risk factor for postoperative complications in aseptic revision hip and knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Alex Gu; Frank R Chen; Aaron Z Chen; Safa C Fassihi; Savyasachi Thakkar; Anthony S Unger; Jiabin Liu; Peter K Sculco; Michael P Ast
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2020-01-25

Review 6.  Is Single-stage Revision Safe Following Infected Total Knee Arthroplasty? A Critical Review.

Authors:  Raju Vaishya; Amit Kumar Agarwal; Sudheer K Rawat; Harsh Singh; Vipul Vijay
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2017-08-30

7.  Antibiotic therapy alone does not have a high success rate in cases of unexpected positive cultures in intraoperative samples from hip and knee prosthesis revision.

Authors:  Bernd Fink; Michael Schlumberger
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2020-11-28       Impact factor: 2.362

8.  The Graphical Representation of Cell Count Representation: A New Procedure for the Diagnosis of Periprosthetic Joint Infections.

Authors:  Bernd Fink; Marius Hoyka; Elke Weissbarth; Philipp Schuster; Irina Berger
Journal:  Antibiotics (Basel)       Date:  2021-03-24
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.