Cementless revision TKA with bone grafting of osseous defects restores bone stock with a low revision rate at 4 to 10 years.

Joint Reconstruction Unit, Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital, Brockley Hill, Stanmore HA7 4LP, UK.
Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research (Impact Factor: 2.88). 06/2011; 469(11):3164-71. DOI: 10.1007/s11999-011-1938-3
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Addressing bone loss in revision TKA is challenging despite the array of options to reconstruct the deficient bone. Biologic reconstruction using morselized loosely-packed bone graft potentially allows for augmentation of residual bone stock while offering physiologic load transfer. However it is unclear whether the reconstructions are durable.
We therefore sought to determine (1) survivorship and complications, (2) function, and (3) radiographic findings of cementless revision TKA in combination with loosely-packed morselized bone graft to reconstruct osseous defects at revision TKA.
We retrospectively reviewed 56 patients who had undergone revision TKAs using cementless long-stemmed components in combination with morselized loose bone graft at our institution. There were 26 men and 30 women with a mean age of 68.3 years (range, 56-89 years). Patients were followed to assess symptoms and function and to detect radiographic loosening, component migration, and graft incorporation. The minimum followup was 4 years (mean, 7.3 years; range, 4-10 years).
Cumulative prosthesis survival, with revision as an end point, was 98% at 10 years. The mean Oxford Knee Scores improved from 21 (36%) preoperatively to 41 (68%) at final followup. Five patients (9%) had reoperations for complications.
Our observations suggest this technique is reproducible and obviates the need for excessive bone resection, use of large metal augments, mass allografts, or custom prostheses. It allows for bone stock to be reconstructed reliably with durable midterm component fixation.
Level IV, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The management of bone loss is a crucial aspect of the revision knee arthroplasty. Bone loss can hinder the correct positioning and alignment of the prosthetic components, and can prevent the achievement of a stable bone-implant interface. There is still controversy regarding the optimal management of knee periprosthetic bone loss, especially in large defects for which structural grafts, metal or tantalum augments, tantalum cones, porous metaphyseal sleeves, and special prostheses have been advocated. The aim of this review was to analyze all possible causes of bone loss and the most advanced strategies for managing bony deficiency within the knee joint reconstruction. Most significant and recent papers about the management of bone defects during revision knee arthroplasty were carefully analyzed and reviewed to report the most common causes of bone loss and the most effective strategies to manage them. Modular metal and tantalum augmentation showed to provide more stable and durable knee revisions compared to allografts, limited by complications such as graft failure, fracture and resorption. Moreover, modular augmentation may considerably shorten operative times with a potential decrease of complications, above all infection which has been frequently associated to the use of allografts. Modular augmentation may significantly reduce the need for allografting, whose complications appear to limit the long-term success of knee revisions.
    Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery 02/2014; DOI:10.1007/s00402-014-1941-8 · 1.36 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Bone loss (BL) is frequent during revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA). It is underestimated in X-rays. Most classifications distinguish contained from uncontained BL but the most frequently used classification is that of Engh, which does not take into account this element. Reconstruction should result in resistant support for the revision TKA. It helps correct malalignment, restore satisfactory ligament tension and height of the joint line. Several techniques have been suggested: cement, augments, bone grafts, modular metaphyseal sleeves and cones and megaprostheses. Cement is only used with small BL, especially in elderly patients. Augments allow rapid filling of small peripheral BL with good mid-term results but frequent radiolucent lines. Morselized allografts can be incorporated and remodeled. They are a good alternative in young patients. Structural allografts are resistant but there is a risk of fracture and resorption. Modular metaphyseal sleeves and cones incorporate with host bone and are attached to the prosthesis by a mechanical interface or cement. They may also be more durable. Megaprostheses are only indicated in severe BL in elderly subjects. Reconstruction is just one aspect of revision TKA and it should respect the technical requirements of the procedure in particular fixation with a stem, which is important in determining the outcome of reconstruction.
    Orthopaedics & Traumatology Surgery & Research 01/2013; DOI:10.1016/j.otsr.2012.11.009 · 1.17 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: PURPOSE: Along with the increase in primary total knee arthroplasty, there has been an increase in the number of revisions. The aim of this study was to propose a selection algorithm for the knee revision constraint according to the state of ligaments and to the bone defects Anderson Orthopaedic Research Institute Classification [AORI] classification. The hypothesis was that this algorithm would facilitate the appropriate choice of prosthesis constraint, thus providing stable components and a good long-term survivorship of the knee revisions. METHODS: Sixty consecutive revision knee arthroplasties in 57 patients were prospectively evaluated. Prostheses implanted at revision included postero-stabilised, condylar constrained and rotating hinged, relative to the state of the ligaments and of the bone loss around the knee. The median follow-up was nine years (range, 4-12). RESULTS: The median IKS knee and function scores and HSS score were 41 (15-62), 21.5 (12-43) and 34 (23-65) points, respectively, before the operation, and 81 (48-97), 79 (56-92) and 83.5 (62-98) points (p < 0.001) at the latest follow-up evaluation. The median ROM increased from 74° (29-110°) preoperatively to 121° (98-132°) (p < 0.01) at the final follow-up. Re-revision was necessary in five (8.3 %) patients. CONCLUSIONS: A selection algorithm for the revision implant constraint based on the state of ligaments and the bone loss AORI classification could provide stable knee reconstructions and long-term success of knee revisions.
    International Orthopaedics 05/2013; 37(7). DOI:10.1007/s00264-013-1929-y · 2.02 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 31, 2014