The aim of this study is to examine the differences in long-term mortality rates between infected and aseptic revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) in a single specialist centre over an 18-year period. Retrospective consecutive study of all patients who underwent rTHA at our tertiary centre between 2003 and 2020 was carried out. Revisions were classified as infected or aseptic. We identified patients’ age, gender, American Society of Anaesthesiologists grade (ASA) and body mass index (BMI). The primary outcome measure was all-cause mortality at 5 years, 10 years and over the whole study period at 18 years. Death was identified through both local hospital electronic databases and linked data for the National Joint Registry. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were used to estimate time to death. Where two-stage revision techniques were used of the management of infected cases, these were grouped as a single revision episode for the purpose of analysis. In total, 1138 consecutive hip revisions were performed on 1063 patients (56 bilateral revisions – aseptic, 10 Excision arthroplasties – infection, 9 – Debridement, Antibiotics, Implant retention (DAIR) with 893 aseptic revisions in 837 patients (78.7%) and 245 infected revisions in 226 patients (21.3%). Average age of the entire study cohort was 71.0 (24–101) with 527 female (49.6%). Average age of the infection and aseptic cohorts was 68.8 and 71.5 respectively. Revisions for infection had higher mortality rates throughout the three time points of analysis. Patients’ survivorship for infected vs aseptic revisions was; 77.8% vs 87.7% at 5 years, 62.8% vs 76.5% at 10 years and 62.4% vs 72.0% at 18 years. The unadjusted 10-year risk ratio of death after infected revision was 1.58 (95% confidence interval 1.28–1.95) compared to aseptic revisions. rTHA performed for infection is associated with significantly higher long-term mortality at all time points compared to aseptic revision surgery

The aim of this retrospective cohort study was to investigate the reasons for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) revisions at a tertiary hospital over a four-year period. The study aimed to identify the primary causes of TKA revisions and shed light on the implications for patient care and outcomes.

The study included 31 patients who underwent revisions after primary knee arthroplasty between January 2017 and December 2020. A retrospective approach was employed, utilizing medical records and radiological findings to identify the reasons for TKA revisions. The study excluded oncology patients to focus on non-oncologic indications for revision surgeries. Patient demographics, including age and gender, were recorded. Data analysis involved categorizing the reasons for revision based on clinical assessments and radiological evidence.

Among the 31 patients included in the study, 9 were males and 22 were females. The age of the patients ranged from 43 to 81, with a median age of 65 and an interquartile range of 18.5. The primary reasons for TKA revisions were identified as aseptic loosening (10 cases) and prosthetic joint infection (PJI) (13 cases). Additional reasons included revision from surgitech hemicap (1 case), patella osteoarthritis (1 case), stiffness (2 cases), patella maltracking (2 cases), periprosthetic fracture (1 case), and patella resurfacing (1 case). The findings of this retrospective cohort study highlight aseptic loosening and PJI as the leading causes of TKA revisions in the examined patient population.

These results emphasize the importance of optimizing surgical techniques, implant selection, and infection control measures to reduce the incidence of TKA revisions. Future research efforts should focus on preventive strategies to enhance patient outcomes and mitigate the need for revision surgeries in TKA procedures.

Ceramic bearing fracture is a rare complication following implantation using modern day ceramic bearing materials. Revision bearing options in such cases is debated, with the choice between ceramic-on-ceramic and ceramic-on-polyethylene bearings. Revision to a hard on soft bearing raises concerns about potential catastrophic wear secondary to a third-body reaction caused by the fractured ceramic particles.

Data was collected retrospectively from the NJR, electronic patient records, revision database and picture archiving and communication system. Templating software was used to determine linear wear between first post-operative radiograph and the latest available follow up. Univariate analysis was used to examine patient demographics and the wear rates for revision of ceramic bearing fractures to ceramic on polyethylene components. The intra and inter-rater reliability of wear measurements was calculated.

There were twelve patients identified as meeting the inclusion criteria. The average age at revision was 62 years (54–72). There were 6 liner and 6 head fractures revised to delta ceramic heads and cross-linked polyethylene acetabular components. The most frequently used head size was 32mm. At mean follow up of 3.8 years (0.5 6.1 years), median 4.4 years, linear wear rate was calculated at 0.08± 0.06 mm/year. Both intra-rater and inter-rater reliability was excellent with ICC scores of 0.99 at all timepoints.

Revision to ceramic on polyethylene (CoP) bearings following ceramic fracture does not cause early catastrophic wear at early follow up. It appears safe to use this hard on soft bearing combination, given that wear rates are comparable to what is expected in a primary hip replacement setting. Longer follow up is required to establish if this trend persists.

Ceramic on ceramic (CoC) Total Hip Replacement revisions give specific problems and no consensus is made on the way to perform it. The aim of this study was to report the results of THA CoC revisions and to identify the specific concerns. Between April 2007 and May 2016, 50 consecutive revisions have been performed on average 2.8 years after the THA, in 46 patients (28 males, 18 females) at a mean age of 55 years. The main reasons for revision were loosening (34%), pain without loosening (20%), infection (12%), implant breakage (10%), and instability (8%). There were 41 implant revisions, five revisions without implant change (10%) and four revisions for head change (8%). Revisions were performed without bone reconstruction in 68% of hips and with a CoC couple in 83% of hips. Three patients have died and three were lost to follow up. There were six intraoperative femoral fractures, one early and two late non−recurrent dislocations. Eight hips (16%) had re−revision with implant replacement. At a mean follow-up of 5.5 years, the mean PMA, Harris and WOMAC scores were 14.8, 72 and 23. 80% of patients were satisfied of the procedure and 89% were ready to re-do the surgery if necessary. 16% of hips experienced a noise. There were no complete lucent lines, no osteolysis, and no implant migration. Wear was not measurable. The 6-year survival rate was 82 % and 90 % if the end-point was implant revision for any cause and for fixation failure, respectively. CoC THA failure mainly affects a young population and occurs early. Failure is not wear-related but possibly related to inadequate technique. It is often possible to perform THA revision without any bone graft, using standard implants and CoC couple, provided the implants are matched

Aim

In recent years, many studies on revision for infection after arthroplasty have been published. In national arthroplasty registers, revision for infection is defined as surgical debridement, with or without removal or exchange of the entire or parts of the prosthesis due to deep infection, and should be reported to the register immediately after surgery. The diagnosis of infection is made at the surgeon's discretion, based on pre- and perioperative assessment and evaluation, and is not to be corrected to the register based on peroperative bacterial cultures. Due to this lack of validation, the rate of revision for infection will only be an approximation of the true rate of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). Our aim was to validate the reporting of infection after total hip arthroplasty, and to assess if revisions for infection actually represented true PJI.

To identify frequency and patterns of Oxford Phase 3 Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty (UKA) failure in New Zealand through analysis of national primary and revision data. Compare the results of this data with that of total knee arthroplasty and other international joint registers. Retrospective audit examining all Oxford Phase 3 UKAs recorded in the New Zealand National Joint Register from January 2000 to December 2007 were analysed and then statistic al analysis performed to identify patterns of failure and reasons for revision. Two thousand six hundred and twenty Oxford UKAs were performed by 99 Orthopædic Surgeons. The average age was 66.1 years (range 35–94). Osteoarthritis was the primary diagnosis. Mean time to revision 839 days (2.3 years). Revision rate was 5.6% (n=148). The most common reasons for revision were pain (n=61, 41%), aseptic loosening (n=53, 36%), and bearing dislocation (n=16, 11%). Deep infection rate was 0.26% (7/2620) compared with 1.76% of total knee arthroplasties (564/32029). Six surgeons (high use & #8805;10 UKAs/year) performed 699 (26.7%) operations, revision rate 2.6%. Fifty-five surgeons (low use & #8804; two UKA/year) performed 283 (10.8%) operations, revision rate 10.6%. There was a statistically significant difference seen with an inverse relationship between surgeon experience and revision. The revision rate for the Oxford is three, two times greater than TKA. UKA is now decreasing in New Zealand whilst Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA) continues to increase. The number of is now decreasing in New Zealand whilst Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA) continues to increase. The number of surgeons using Oxford UKA has increased by 19% but the number of Oxfords being done has fallen by 13%. High use surgeons’ revision rate is now higher than TKA. An inverse relationship between failure and surgeon experience exists which confirms Swedish Knee Arthroplasty register reports. The deep infection rate is less than TKA. Revisions were performed early for unexplained pain in the absence of obvious mechanical failure. This is against generally held wisdom for TKA and may reflect the perception that UKA is easily revised to TKA

Introduction: The modular IBPSII prosthesis was introduced in 1989 with modifications to the patello-femoral articulation and the posterior stabilized mechanism. Methods: 100 consecutive IBPSII knee arthroplasties were followed prospectively. Age, gender, deformity and diagnoses were comparable to previous groups. Results: Fifty-one knees were evaluated at 10 or more years with the Knee Society scores and radiographs. 14 were evaluated by phone. An additional 6 knees required revision and 29 were in patients who died. None were lost. Revisions were performed for instability (2 knees), sepsis (2), loosening from osteolysis (1), and stiffness (1). In the 10-year group, 12 patients required reoperations: Patellar revision for loosening (1), patel-lectomy for fracture (1), polyethylene exchange for dislocation of the spine and cam mechanism (3) and for dissociation (1), and arthroscopic resection of scar from the quadriceps tendon (patellar clunk) in 6 knees. Conclusion: The smoother patello-femoral groove was associated with fewer patellar fractures, but resulted in scar on the quadriceps catching on the femoral component. The tibial spine was moved posteriorly from previous models to increase rollback. This resulted in dislocation of the spine and cam mechanism. One case failed due to loosening and extensive osteolysis presumably associated with modularity. The last two complications were not observed with earlier versions of this prosthesis. All complications occurred within the first five years

There is a paucity of mid-term data on modular dual-mobility (MDM) constructs versus large (≥40 mm) femoral heads (LFH) in revision total hip arthroplasties (THAs). The purpose of this study was to update our prior series at 10 years, with specific emphasis on survivorships free of re-revision for dislocation, any re-revision, and dislocation.

We identified 300 revision THAs performed at a single tertiary care academic institution from 2011 to 2014. Aseptic loosening of the acetabular component (n=65), dislocation (n=59), and reimplantation as part of a two-stage exchange protocol (n=57) were the most common reasons for index revision. Dual-mobility constructs were used in 124 cases, and LFH were used in 176 cases. Mean age was 66 years, mean BMI was 31 kg/m², and 45% were female. Mean follow-up was 7 years.

The 10-year survivorship free of re-revision for dislocation was 97% in the MDM cohort and 91% in the LFH cohort with a significantly increased risk of re-revision for dislocation in the LFH cohort (HR 5.2; p=0.03). The 10-year survivorship free of any re-revision was 90% in the MDM cohort and 84% in the LFH cohort with a significantly increased risk of any re-revision in the LFH cohort (HR 2.5; p=0.04). The 10-year survivorship free of any dislocation was 92% in the MDM cohort and 87% in the LFH cohort. There was a trend towards an increased risk of any dislocation in the LFH cohort (HR 2.3; p=0.06).

In this head-to-head comparison, revision THAs using MDM constructs had a significantly lower risk of re-revision for dislocation compared to LFH at 10 years. In addition, there was a trend towards lower risk of any dislocation.

Level of Evidence: IV

In 2022, approximately 60% of inserted cups and stems in Sweden utilized cemented fixation. Two predominant brands, Refobacin Bone Cement R and Palacos R+G, both incorporating gentamicin, were employed in over 90% of primary cemented Total Hip Arthroplasties (THAs) between 2012 and 2022. This study investigates whether the choice between these cement types affects the risk of revision.

The five most frequently used cemented cups and the three most common stems were studied. Inclusion criteria encompassed hips with non-tumour diagnoses, operated through a direct lateral or posterior incision, featuring a 28–36 mm metal or ceramic head. Outcomes were assessed for cup revisions (n=55,457 Refobacin, 37,210 Palacos), stem revisions (n=51,732 Refobacin, 30,018 Palacos), and all-cemented THAs with either brand (n=45,265 Refobacin, 26,347 Palacos). Kaplan-Meier life tables and hazard ratios (HR) utilizing Cox regression were computed, adjusting for age, sex, diagnosis, implant type, femoral head size, and material.

Over a 10-year period, the cumulative percent revision with Refobacin was consistently higher than Palacos in all three analyses (cups: Refobacin 2.4 (2.3–2.5), Palacos 2.1 (2.0–2.2); stems: Refobacin 2.6 (2.5–2.7), Palacos 2.1 (2,0–2,2); all-cemented: Refobacin 3.2 (2.9–3.5), Palacos 2.9 (2.6–3.2)). Both unadjusted and adjusted HR were 13–25% lower with Palacos. In the analysis of all-cemented THAs, the adjusted HR for Palacos was 0.85 (0.76–0.95). Separating revisions into infectious and non-infectious reasons revealed a lower risk of infectious revisions with Palacos in all three analyses (all-cemented: adjusted HR infection 0.66 (0.56–0.78); non-infectious 1.10 (0.94–1.28)).

Hips cemented with Refobacin may face an increased risk of infection, potentially due to a smaller release of antibiotics into surrounding tissues. Unaccounted factors like different mixing systems or unknown biases could also influence outcomes, emphasizing the need for further investigation.

Aim

Little is known about microbiological spectrum and resistance patterns as well as the clinical outcome in patients who undergo a repeat first stage procedure as part of a 2-stage revision arthroplasty for the treatment of periprosthetic hip and knee joint infections.

Background

One of the major concerns of hinge knees have been reported in literature is mechanical failure. Failure in the form of component fracture (2–10%) and hinge dislocation/ failure are worrisome. In addition, higher risk of aseptic loosening with hinge knee prosthesis has been attributed to stress transfer at bone cement interface.

The unacceptable failure rate of cemented femoral revisions led to many different cementless femoral designs employing fixation in the damaged proximal femur with biological coatings limited to this area. The results of these devices were uniformly poor and were abandoned for the most part by the mid-1990's.

Fully porous coated devices employing distal fixation in the diaphysis emerged as the gold standard for revisions with several authors reporting greater than 90% success rate 8–10 years of follow-up. Surgical techniques and ease of insertion improved with the introduction of the extended trochanteric osteotomy as well as curved, long, fully porous coated stems with diameters up to 23mm. The limits of these stems were stretched to include any stem diameter in which even 1–2cm of diaphyseal contact could be achieved. When diaphyseal fixation was not possible (Type IV), the alternatives were either impaction grafting or allograft prosthetic composite (APC).

As the results of fully porous coated stems were very carefully scrutinised, it became apparent that certain types of bone loss did not yield the most satisfactory results both clinically and radiographically.

When less than 4cm of diaphyseal press fit (Type IIIB) was achieved, the mechanical failure rate (MFR) was over 25%. It also became apparent that even when there was 4–6cm diaphyseal contact (Type IIIA), and the stem diameter was 18mm or greater, post-operative pain and function scores were significantly less than those with smaller diameter stems. This was probably due to poorer quality bone.

Many of these Type IIIA and Type IIIB femurs had severe proximal torsional remodeling leading to marked distortion of anteversion. This made judging the amount of anteversion to apply to the stem at the time of insertion very difficult, leading to higher rates of dislocation. These distortions were not present in Type I and Type II femurs.

This chain of events which was a combination of minimal diaphyseal fixation, excessively stiff stems and higher dislocation rates led to the conversion to modular type stems when these conditions existed.

For the past 13 years, low modulus taper stems of the Wagner design have been used for almost all Type IIIA and Type IIIB bone defects. The taper design with fluted splines allows for fixation when there is less than 2cm of diaphysis.

The results in these femurs even with diameters of up to 26mm have led to very low MFRs and significantly less thigh pain. Independent anteversion adjustment is also a huge advantage in these modular stems. Similar success rates, albeit with less follow-up, have been noted in Type IV femurs.

Introduction

The number of medial unicompartmental knee replacements (UKR) performed for arthritis has increased and as such, revisions to total knee replacement (TKR) is increasing. Previous studies have investigated survivorship of UKR to TKR revision and functional outcomes compared to TKR to TKR revision, but have failed to detail the surgical considerations involved in these revisions. Our objectives are to investigate the detailed surgical considerations involved in UKR to TKR revisions.

The femoral diaphysis presents the best opportunity for fixation during revision THA. Both fully coated cylindrical and modular fluted tapered titanium stems have demonstrated excellent results. Cylindrical stems have demonstrated concerning rates of failure when used in larger, osteopenic canals or in canals with post-isthmal divergent morphologies. Modular stems offer the advantage of separating distal fixation needs from proximal version, leg length, and offset needs via a modular junction. Although early designs demonstrated some breakages at the taper or through thin proximal bodies, newer generation implants have not demonstrated such mechanical concerns. Additionally, the modular junctions do not appear to be having any problems with corrosion. Mid- to long-term data with various designs now support the safety and efficacy of these constructs that can handle a wide variety of challenges during femoral revision. Careful attention to detail is necessary to minimise the risk of subsidence and intra-operative fracture or femoral perforation.

Distal femoral replacement is an operation long considered as salvage operation for neoplastic conditions. Outcomes of this procedure for difficult knee revisions with bone loss of distal femur have been sparsely reported.

We present the early results of complex revision knee arthroplasty using distal femoral replacement implant, performed for severe osteolysis and bone loss.

Retrospective review of clinic and radiological results of 25 consecutive patients operated at single centre between January 2010 and December 2014. All patients had single type of implant. All data was collected till the latest follow up. Re-revision for any reason was considered as primary end point.

Mean age at surgery was 72.2 years (range 51 – 85 years). Average number of previous knee replacements was 2.28 (range 1 to 6). Most common indications were infection, aseptic loosening and peri-prosthetic fracture. Average follow up was 24.5 months (range: 3–63 months). 1 patient died 8 months post-op due to unrelated reasons. Re-revision rate was 2/25 (8%) during this period. One was re-revised for aseptic loosening and one was revised for peri-prosthetic fracture of femur. Two other peri-prosthetic fractures were managed by open reduction and internal fixation. All 3 peri-prosthetic fractures occurred with low energy trauma.

It is noteworthy that there was no hinge or mechanical failures of the implant. Peri-prosthetic fracture in 12% of patients in this series is of concern. There are no similar studies to compare this data with. The length of the stem, type of fixation of the stem, weight of the distal femoral component of implant can be postulated as factors contributing to risk of peri-prosthetic fracture.

Introduction and Objectives: There are knee prostheses that are specifically designed for the treatment of extreme cases of surgical revision of cases with large bone losses. These are hinged systems that provide greater stability and have a wide range of components to reconstruct bone defects Experience with this type of prosthesis is usually limited, due to the fact that it is used in complex and sporadic cases. Our aim is to review the results obtained with the implant of this prosthesis in our unit.

Materials and Methods: From June 2000 until March 2008 we implanted 10 salvage knee prostheses (5 TKR OSS, 5 TKR FINN). These procedures were carried out in 6 women and 4 men of 33 to 77 years of age. Indications for these procedures were many, with predominance of revision surgery of septic knee, bone tumors and failure of an infected osteosynthesis.

Results: We achieved pain relief in 7 patients: Mean morbidity > 45° in 7 cases. And 90% of the patients were satisfied.

Discussion and Conclusions: Large bone defects are difficult to reconstruct, especially when a joint is affected. Revision surgery is difficult and has poor results. Knee salvage prostheses are capable of providing a stable non-painful knee in severely incapacitated patients. We had few complications and we hope to have more cases and be able to carry out a longer follow-up of the ones we had. We are optimistic and we have named this prosthesis ‘the third knee prosthesis’.

Background

Reasons for revision of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty (MoMHRA) have evolved with improving surgical experience and techniques. Early revisions were often due to fracture of the femoral neck while later revisions are associated with loosening and/or adverse local tissue reactions (ALTR) to wear debris. In some studies, revisions of MoMHRA with ALTR have been complicated by an increased risk of rerevision and poor outcome. The purpose of this study was to investigate the causes of failure and to identify factors that improve outcome following revision of a failed HRA.

Preliminary results using Trabecular Metal (TM) acetabular component (made of tantalum) in primary and in revision total hip arthroplasty are encouraging in few published papers in the literature.

Patients and Methods: The outcome and survivorship of a TM revision uncemented acetabular cup were assessed in 85 consecutive patients (Male 48, Female 37, mean age 70,9 years, range 54–92) undergoing revision THA in the time period from 13.5.2004 to 8.6.2006. Years from previous operation to revision arthroplasty was in average of 10,0 years (range 1–23). Acetabular bone defects were assessed using Paprosky grading system. Monoblock TM cup was used in 26 operations(Paprosky grade I=13; grade IIa=1; Grade IIb=6 and Grade IIc=6). Modular revision TM cup was used in 59 operations (Paprosky grade I=7; Grade IIa=5; Grade Ibis=15;Grade IIc=24; Grade IIIa=5 and Grade IIIb=3). 55 allografts (femoral heads) were used to fill bone defects in 39 acetabulums. TM augment was needed in 4 operations. In 17 operations also the femoral component was revised. Seven of these operations were re-revision operations. Full weight-bearing was allowed after 44 operations, partial weight-bearing after 37 operations and no weight-bearing after 4 operations. In four operations, where TM cup was initially tried to use, the fixation was found to be insufficient. Consequently, the method of revision was changed either to plating and TM-cup (Paprosky grade IIIB, n=2) or protection cup-system (Paprosky grade IIc, n=2).

Results: Subjectively, the patients were satisfied with this operation at the follow-up (mean 14 months, range 3–26). 58 (68%) patients were painless and 72 (85%) patients walked without any support. X-ray studies showed good TM-cup fixation into acetabular host bone and bone defect filling in 84 out of 85 cases in this short follow-up.

Complications: 7 dislocations, 1 deep infection and 1 sciatic nerve injury. These complications were concentrated to alcoholic and patients with many other health problems.

Conclusion: TM implant has very good primary fixation properties in host bone. The cup shows reliable ingrowths and defect filling with host bone. Our good short-term results with TM-cup are similar to the few previously published papers. Further clinical investigation is needed to show the durability and functionality of this new prosthetic material.

Two-stage revision is the gold standard for managing infected total hip and knee arthroplasties. The aim was to assess the effect of duration between stages on reinfection rate at one year.

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted on all studies investigating reinfection rate with documented interval between first and second stages. Total hip (THR) and total knee replacements (TKRs) were included but analysed separately. The effect size of studies was stratified according to sample size then with study quality.

All papers up until November 2015 (including non-English language) were considered. From 3827 papers reviewed, 38 cohorts from 35 studies were included, comprising 23 THR and 15 TKR groups. Average study quality was 5.6/11 (range 3–8). Funnel plots calculated to assess for bias indicated significant asymmetry at lower sample sizes in both groups.

In the TKR group, studies with 0–3 months between stages showed a significantly lower reinfection rate than 3–6 months (9.5% 21/222 vs 20.7% 28/135, p<0.01). A similar trend was seen in the THR group (6.1% vs 10.7%, p<0.05). No difference was observed for either group between 3–6 and 6–9 months.

There is no consensus regarding the appropriate duration between surgeries in two-stage revisions for infection. Studies stratified by sample size and quality indicate an increased reinfection rate past three months. Published guidance is no substitute for clinical decision-making but the conclusions from this study are to recommend against routine delay of more than 3 months between first and second stage revisions for infected THR and TKR.

In last ten years U.K.R. number increased due to diffusion of M.I.S. concepts, new indications/tecniques and durable prosthetic models. Also the amount of revisions, performed for different reasons, has increased. Failures relate to planning and surgical errors, aseptic loosening, non treated or femoro patellar compartment degeneration, ligaments instability, P.E. wear, components ruptures, infections.

In our division in 1990–2003 we performed 136 U.K.R. revisions on 13 different implants with a prevalence of “fixed bearing” (79,40%) on “meniscal bearing” (20,60%). A classification withprevalence of failure causes, different from T.K.R.’s, is proposed. Revision procedure strongly depends on causes: “Uni”, “BiUni” or “Total” approach is possible. We present our experience and derived indications.

Aseptic loosening were treated differently depending on bone stock and on failure risk factors (ligament laxity, surgical osteotomic or axial errors, fixation defects) with a “Uni” revision or with a “Total”. Unicompartimental degeneration with a previous medial or lateral U.K.R. in good conditions may undergoes “BiUni” instead of “Total” only in absence of ligament laxity and femo-ropatellar symptomatic degeneration. Femoro-patellar degeneration needs a T.K.R. implant. We managed cases with macroscopic surgical errors (ostheotomy or component alignment) by using T.K.R. (stemmed and with auto-graft if needed) and U.K.R. revision. Failures due to varus-valgus instability were normally treated with T.K.R. (standard or stemmed) and with constrained T.K.R. (1 Reumatoid Arthritis case). We resolve P.E. debris failures in fixed bearing implants simply with a component change as we do in stress fractures (femur or “full poly” tibia). We treat infections with a 2 step procedure; for 2°step we used T.K.R. (standard or stemmed).

In conclusion U.K.R. revision is technically easier than TKR’s, bone stock defect may be fighted with auto graft and/or stems and in a selected amount of cases it’s possible to use U.K.R. orstandard T.K.R. with very similar long term results of first implants.