Abstract
Instability currently represents the most frequent cause for revision total knee replacement. Instability can be primary from the standpoint of inadequately performed collateral and/or posterior cruciate ligament balancing during primary total knee replacement or it may be secondary to malalignment secondary to loosening and settling of the implants which can develop later progressive instability. Revision surgery must take into consideration any component malalignment that may have primarily contributed to instability. Also, collateral ligament integrity may change following total knee replacement slightly after complete correction of a severe deformity that presents rarely as instability after several months.
Care should be given to assessing collateral ligament integrity. This can be done during physical examination by manual or radiological stress testing to see if the mediolateral stress of the knee comes to a good endpoint. If there is no sense of a palpable endpoint, then the surgeon must assume structural incompetency of the medial or lateral collateral ligament or both. In posterior cruciate ligament retaining knees, anteroposterior instability must be assessed.
For instability, most revisions will require a posterior cruciate substituting design or a constrained unlinked condylar design. Occasionally, a posterior cruciate ligament preserving design can be used in situations where the bone-stock is well preserved and the posterior cruciate ligament shows excellent structural integrity. However, if the patient displays considerable global instability, a linked, rotating platform constrained total knee replacement design will be required. Recent data has shown that the rotating hinges work quite well in restoring stability to the knee with maintenance of the clinical results over a considerable length of time. Revision can range from simple polyethylene insert exchange to a thicker dimension, isolated component revision or complete revision of both femoral and tibial devices.
During revision surgery, laminar spreaders may be utilised to assess the flexion and extension spaces after the tibial platform is restored. If a symmetric flexion and extension space is achieved, then the collateral ligaments are intact. Depending on the remaining existing bone stock, a posterior stabilised or constrained condylar unlinked prosthesis may be used for implantation. In cases with considerable asymmetry or a large flexion/extension mismatch, a rotating hinge design should be utilised.
Intramedullary stems should be utilised in most cases when bone integrity is suspect and insufficient. Currently, stems should be placed cementless to permit easier future revision. Cementing the stems is only recommended if there is lack of intramedullary isthmic support or there is a hip prosthetic stem that prohibits a stem from engaging the isthmic cortex. However, it should be realised that later revision of the fully cemented revision implant may be quite difficult.
Infection should be ruled out by aspiration off of antibiotics prior to any revision operation, especially if loosening of the components represents the cause of instability early. The surgeon should attempt to restore collateral ligament balance whenever possible as this yields the best clinical result.
