OUTCOME COMPARISON OF PARTIAL AND FULL COMPONENT REVISION TOTAL KNEE ARTHROPLASTY (TKA) FOR WEARRELATED PROBLEMS

Abstract

Introduction: Althoug the advantages of partial revision in hip replacement are well-documented, the effectiveness of this treatment strategy has not been established in revision TKA. The purpose of this study is compare the results of tibial component versus full–component (Miller-Galante II-MG II to Constrained Condylar Knee-CCK) revision TKA for wear-related problems.

Materials and Methods: A retrospective review was used to identify who had partial revision TKA. Over a 10-year period, 55 revision TKAs were completed. All the primary arthroplasties were MG II hybrid primary arthroplasties (uncemented femoral component, cemented tibial component, cemented patellar resurfacing). Twenty-five partial revisions (tibial component and polyethylene exchange) and 30 full-component revision TKAs were done. The average follow-up was 5.2 years. Knee Society clinical scores were used to compare patients who had tibial revision with patients who had full-component revision.

Results: The average Knee Society score for full component revisions was 85 compared to 63 for partial revisions (significant difference).

Discussion and Conclusion: We recommend caution in doing isolated tibial revisions in which retaining the femoral component limits the surgeon options to properly balance the knee. Full revision should be done if there is any question regarding ligamentous balancing or equalization of flexion and extension gaps.