Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA) is becoming increasingly prevalent as the number of TKA procedures grow in a younger, higher-demand population. Factors associated with patients requiring multiple revision TKAs are not yet well understood. The purpose of this study is to investigate the epidemiology of re-revision TKA, and identify risk factors that are associated with failure of re-revision TKA. A retrospective analysis was performed on 358 patients who underwent revision TKA at a single institution between 1/2012 and 12/2013. Patients who underwent revision knee arthroplasty two or more times were included. Patients were excluded if their indication for the first revision was periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). Patient demographics, surgical indications, revision details, and available follow-up information were collected. Re-revision failure was defined as the need for any additional operative intervention. A logistic regression analysis was performed to assess for significant predictors of re-revision failure.Introduction
Methods
Understanding the biomechanics of the anatomical knee is vital to innovations in implant design and surgical procedures. The anterior – posterior (AP) laxity is of particular importance in terms of functional outcomes. Most of the data on stability has been obtained on the unloaded knee, which does not relate to functional knee behavior. However, some studies have shown that AP laxity decreases under compression (1) (2). This implies that while the ligaments are the primary stabilizers under low loads, other mechanisms come into play in the loaded knee. It is hypothesized this decreased laxity with compressive loads is due to the following: the meniscus, which will restrain the femur in all directions; the cartilage, which will require energy as the femur displaces across the tibial surface in a plowing fashion; and the upwards slope of the anterior medial tibial plateau, which stabilizes the knee by a gravity mechanism. It is also hypothesized that the ACL will be the primary restraint for anterior tibial translation. A test rig was designed where shear and compressive forces could be applied and the AP and vertical displacements measured (Figure 1). The AP motion was controlled by the air bearings and motor, allowing for the accurate application of the shear force. Position and force data were measured using load cells, potentiometers, and a linear variable differential transducer. Five knee specimens less than 60 years old and without osteoarthritis (OA), were evaluated at compressive loads of 0, 250, 500, 750 N, with the knee at 15° flexion. Three cycles of shear force at ±100 N constituted a test. The intact knee was tested, followed by testing after each of the following resections: LCL, MCL, PCL, ACL, medial meniscus, and lateral meniscus.INTRODUCTION
METHODS
The epidemiology of re-revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) is not well understood. The purpose of this study is to investigate the epidemiology of re-revision THA, and identify risk factors that are associated with failure of re-revision THA. A retrospective analysis was performed on 288 patients who underwent revision THA at a single institution between 1/2012 and 12/2013. Patients who underwent revision hip arthroplasty two or more times were included. Patients were excluded if their indication for their first revision was due to periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). Patient demographics, surgical indications, revision details, and available follow-up information were collected through the electronic medical record. Re-revision failure was defined as the need for any additional return to the operating room, regardless of indication. A logistic regression analysis was performed to assess for significant predictors of re-revision failure.Introduction
Methods
