Cemented long-stem revision total knee arthroplasty

2003 ◽  
Vol 18 (5) ◽  
pp. 592-599 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew L Whaley ◽  
Robert T Trousdale ◽  
James A Rand ◽  
Arlen D Hanssen
2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 162-172 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shuqiao Xie ◽  
Noel Conlisk ◽  
David Hamilton ◽  
Chloe Scott ◽  
Richard Burnett ◽  
...  

Aims Metaphyseal tritanium cones can be used to manage the tibial bone loss commonly encountered at revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA). Tibial stems provide additional fixation and are generally used in combination with cones. The aim of this study was to examine the role of the stems in the overall stability of tibial implants when metaphyseal cones are used for rTKA. Methods This computational study investigates whether stems are required to augment metaphyseal cones at rTKA. Three cemented stem scenarios (no stem, 50 mm stem, and 100 mm stem) were investigated with 10 mm-deep uncontained posterior and medial tibial defects using four loading scenarios designed to mimic activities of daily living. Results Small micromotions (mean < 12 µm) were found to occur at the bone-implant interface for all loading cases with or without a stem. Stem inclusion was associated with lower micromotion, however these reductions were too small to have any clinical significance. Peak interface micromotion, even when the cone is used without a stem, was too small to effect osseointegration. The maximum difference occurred with stair descent loading. Stress concentrations in the bone occurred around the inferior aspect of each implant, with the largest occurring at the end of the long stem; these may lead to end-of-stem pain. Stem use is also found to result in stress shielding in the bone along the stem. Conclusion When a metaphyseal cone is used at rTKA to manage uncontained posterior or medial defects of up to 10 mm depth, stem use may not be necessary. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res. 2020;9(4):162–172.


2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jake von Hintze ◽  
Mika Niemeläinen ◽  
Harri Sintonen ◽  
Jyrki Nieminen ◽  
Antti Eskelinen

Abstract Background The purpose of this study was to determine the mid-term clinical, radiographic and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes and define the survival rate in patients who had undergone revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) using the single rotating hinged knee (RHK) design. Methods Between January 2004 and December 2013, 125 revision TKAs were performed at our institution using the single RHK implant. We conducted both a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected outcome data of these patients and a prospective follow-up study of all 39 living patients (41 knees). The follow-up phase included an optional extra follow-up visit, PROM questionnaires, and plain radiographs. Results The ten-year Kaplan-Meier survival rate of the revision RHK knees was 81.7% (95% CI 71.9–91.6%) with re-revision for any reason as the endpoint. Overall, 15 knees (12% of the total) underwent re-revision surgery during the follow-up. The median follow-up was 6.2 years (range, 0–12.7 years) post-operatively for the baseline group. One mechanical hinge mechanism-related failure occurred without any history of trauma or infection. At the time of the final follow-up, the majority of patients evinced a fairly good clinical outcome measured with patient-reported outcome measures and none of the components were radiographically loose. Conclusion We found that in patients undergoing complex revision TKA, fairly good functional outcome and quality of life can be achieved using an RHK implant. Further, it seems that in this type of patient cohort, revision TKA using an RHK implant relieves pain more than it improves ability to function. The NexGen® RHK design can be regarded as a suitable option in complex revision TKA.


2007 ◽  
Vol 464 ◽  
pp. 146-150 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert L Barrack ◽  
J Thomas McClure ◽  
Corey F Burak ◽  
John C Clohisy ◽  
Javad Parvizi ◽  
...  

2009 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 144-153 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael P. Nett ◽  
William J. Long ◽  
Giles R. Scuderi

Author(s):  
Nicole D. Quinlan ◽  
Alyssa D. Althoff ◽  
Dennis Q. Chen ◽  
Brian C. Werner ◽  
Thomas E. Brown ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document