Abstract

BackgroundRevision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) is a demanding procedure, with a high complication and failure rate and a high rate of bone losses and poor bone quality. Different classifications for bone losses have been proposed, but they do not consider bone quality, which may affect implant fixation. The aim of this study is to describe the outcomes of a consecutive series of rTKA. Furthermore, a modified bone loss classification will be proposed based also on bone quality. Finally, the association between radiolucent line (RLL) development and different risk factors will be evaluated.MethodsAll the patients who underwent rTKA between 2008 and 2016 in the same institution were included. rTKAs were performed by the same surgeon according to the three-step technique. Bone losses were classified according to the proposed classification, including bone quality evaluation. The Knee Scoring System (KSS), the Hospital for Special Surgery Knee Score (HSS), and the SF-12 were used for the clinical evaluation. Radiological evaluation was performed according to the Knee Society Roentgenographic Evaluation System. Different possible risk factors (i.e., gender, age, amount of bone losses) associated to RLL development were identified, and this association was evaluated using logistic regression.ResultsFifty-one patients (53 knees) were included (60.8% female, average age 71.5 years). The average follow-up was 56.6 months (range 24–182). The most frequent cause of failure was aseptic loosening (41.5%). 18.9% of the cases demonstrated poor bone quality. Bone losses were treated according to the proposed algorithm. In all the cases, there was a significant improvement in all the scores (P < 0.05). The average post-operative range of motion was 110.5° (SD 10.7). At the radiological evaluation, all the implants resulted well aligned, with 15.1% of non-progressive RLL. There were 2 failures, with a cumulative survivorship of 92.1% at the last follow-up (SD 5.3%). At the logistic regression, none of the evaluated variables resulted associated to RLL development.ConclusionrTKA is a demanding procedure, and adequate treatment of bone losses is mandatory to achieve good results. However, also bone quality should be taken into consideration when approaching bone losses, and the proposed classification may need surgeons after an adequate validation.Level of evidenceLevel IV

Highlights

  • Revision total knee arthroplasty is a demanding procedure, with a high complication and failure rate and a high rate of bone losses and poor bone quality

  • Bone loss in Revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) has been historically classified according to the Anderson Orthopaedics Research Institute (AORI) classification, which considers the location of bone loss and defect size [7]

  • Fifty rTKA in 51 patients were included in the study, with none lost to follow-up and an average follow-up of 56.6 months (SD 35.6 months, range 24–182 months)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) is a demanding procedure, with a high complication and failure rate and a high rate of bone losses and poor bone quality. Good outcomes are described in the literature, with a survivorship of primary TKA ranging between 90% and 95% at 15-year follow-up [2] Considering these data, and the increased number of patients at higher risk of TKA failure (i.e., younger patients) [3], the concomitant increase in the incidence of revision TKA (rTKA) procedures is not surprising. Some authors reported high mid-term failure rates using cement, morselized, or structural bone allograft, probably due to poor bone quality in the metaphysis [10, 11] In these cases, Trabecular MetalTM tantalum cones (Zimmer, Warsaw, IN, USA) can be used to reconstruct metaphyseal bone defects (2A or greater) and to improve implant fixation [12,13,14]. In most rTKA ( after septic loosening), the bone quality is very poor and sclerotic, and it may be useful to add metaphyseal fixation with these cones to obtain more solid implant fixation

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call