To assess the outcome of knee “arthrodesis” using cemented Endo-Model knee fusion nail in failed Total Knee Replacement (TKR) with significant bone loss due to infection. This is a retrospective case study of seven patients with infected TKR and multiple surgeries with significant bone loss. All patients had antibiotic loaded cement with a temporary K-nail as a first stage procedure to eradicate infection. All seven patients had “arthrodesis” performed using cemented modular Endo-Model Knee Fusion nail (Waldemar Link, Hamburg) by the senior author. Cement was used to hold the stems in the diaphyses and not used around the coupling mechanism. The “arthrodesis” relied entirely on the coupling mechanism which has been shown to have good axial and torsional rigidity by mechanical testing. Outcome was assessed using pre and post Visual Analogue Score (VAS). Mean age was 72.3 years(62–86). Mean follow up was 39.6 months (7–68). The VAS pain score improved from pre-operative mean score of 7.9 to a postoperative score of 1.5. One patient suffered fracture of femoral cement mantle at 50 months who underwent a technically easy exchange revision. One patient had recurrent infection with distal femoral fracture at 36 months and was revised to distal femoral replacement. The Endo-Model knee arthrodesis nail restores limb lengths, has good early results in terms of pain relief and provides a stable knee “arthrodesis” in cases where there is significant bone loss and extensor mechanism insufficiency following an infected TKR.
The aims of this study were
to develop the Roche lightcycler Staphylococcal and Enterococcal PCR kits to facilitate diagnosis of hip and knee prosthetic infections To analyse results together with bacteriological and histological findings.
29 patients had non-inflammatory arthritis. 14/18 (77.8%) with positive cultures had staphylococci +/or enterococci isolated and 10 PCR results correlated. The other 11 patients had negative cultures. 9 patients had inflammatory arthritis. Six were culture negative and of the other three, 2 were positive for staphylococci on culture with 1 positive by PCR.
Enterococcal PCR confirmed culture positivity in 2/3 patients. An additional 5 positive PCR’s were obtained from patients’ culture negative for enterococci. It is not clear if these are false positives or more sensitive detection of enterococcal isolation.
Revision hip surgery is becoming increasingly common, 300 procedures being performed in 2001 at our institution. In order to achieve a good outcome bone stock needs to be of good quantity frequently necessitating the use of impaction bone grafting using allograft bone. Donor bone may frequently take three months before it becomes available for use due to the stringent screening procedure. Donor patients must have a clean bill of health, swabs taken at the time of surgery must obviously demonstrate no growth and blood samples taken at donation and an interval of three months, free from viral infectious diseases. It is thus easy to see the lag from the time of donation to availability and why, with increasing demand, need for allograft bone is rapidly exceeding supply. We need to look for an alternative supply of human bone allograft. We have compared the harvest of bone at the time of primary total knee replacement with that of the femoral head by both mass and volume. Sixty consecutive patients undergoing primary hip or knee arthroplasty were included in the study, and the masses and volume of the femoral heads compared with that of the total bone cuts in knee arthroplasty. The type of knee replacement used was documented as was whether the femoral head had had a bone block removed. It was found that the mass of femoral heads was 81g, that of knee cuts 95g this is a statistically significant difference; the volume of femoral heads 66ml and that of knee cuts 75ml. The volumes of bone available from knee arthroplasty cuts are at least comparable femoral heads obtained using hip replacement and could, perhaps, provide a realistic source of bone allograft.
We undertook a radiological evaluation of this technique. We assessed fracture union and strut allograft incorporation using the radiological criteria of Emerson et al. The procedure was deemed a success if the fracture had united, with evidence of graft incorporation with a stable implant. We also undertook a notes review identifying any risk factors and any previous surgery.