Revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) is a technically challenging and costly procedure. It is well-documented that primary TKA (pTKA) have better survivorship than rTKA; however, we were unable to identify any studies explicitly investigating previous rTKA as a risk factor for failure following rTKA. The purpose of this study is to compare the outcomes following rTKA between patients undergoing index rTKA and those who had been previously revised. This retrospective, observational study reviewed patients who underwent unilateral, aseptic rTKA at an academic orthopaedic speciality hospital between June 2011 and April 2020 with > one-year of follow-up. Patients were dichotomized based on whether this was their first revision procedure or not. Patient demographics, surgical factors, postoperative outcomes, and re-revision rates were compared between the groups.Aims
Methods
This study compared the cobalt and chromium serum ion concentration of patients treated with two different metal-on-metal (MoM) hinged total knee arthroplasty (TKA) systems, as well as a titanium nitride (TiN)-coated variant. A total of 63 patients (65 implants) were treated using either a MoM-coated (n = 29) or TiN-coated (n = 7) hinged TKA (GenuX mobile bearing, MUTARS; Implantcast, Germany) versus the BPKS (Brehm, Germany) hinged TKA (n = 27), in which the weight placed on the MoM hinge is diffused through a polyethylene (PE) inlay, reducing the direct load on the MoM hinge. Serum cobalt and chromium ion concentrations were assessed after minimum follow-up of 12 months, as well as functional outcome and quality of life.Aims
Methods
Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is an alternative to total knee arthroplasty with isolated medial or lateral compartment osteoarthritis. However, polyethylene wear can significantly reduce the lifespan of UKA. Different bearing designs and materials for UKA have been developed to change the rate of polyethylene wear. Therefore, the objective of this study is to investigate the effect of insert conformity and material on the predicted wear in mobile-bearing UKA using a previously developed computational wear method. Two different designs were tested with the same femoral component under identical kinematic input: anatomy mimetic design (AMD) and conforming design inserts with different conformity levels. The insert materials were standard or crosslinked ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene (UHMWPE). We evaluated the contact pressure, contact area, wear rate, wear depth, and volumetric wear under gait cycle loading conditions.Objectives
Methods
Previous studies of failure mechanisms leading
to revision total knee replacement (TKR) performed between 1986 and
2000 determined that many failed early, with a disproportionate
amount accounted for by infection and implant-associated factors
including wear, loosening and instability. Since then, efforts have
been made to improve implant performance and instruct surgeons in
best practice. Recently our centre participated in a multi-centre evaluation
of 844 revision TKRs from 2010 to 2011. The purpose was to report
a detailed analysis of failure mechanisms over time and to see if
failure modes have changed over the past 10 to 15 years. Aseptic
loosening was the predominant mechanism of failure (31.2%), followed
by instability (18.7%), infection (16.2%), polyethylene wear (10.0%),
arthrofibrosis (6.9%) and malalignment (6.6%). The mean time to
failure was 5.9 years (ten days to 31 years), 35.3% of all revisions
occurred at less than two years, and 60.2% in the first five years.
With improvements in implant and polyethylene manufacture, polyethylene
wear is no longer a leading cause of failure. Early mechanisms of
failure are primarily technical errors. In addition to improving
implant longevity, industry and surgeons must work together to decrease
these technical errors. All reports on failure of TKR contain patients
with unexplained pain who not infrequently have unmet expectations.
Surgeons must work to achieve realistic patient expectations pre-operatively,
and therefore, improve patient satisfaction post-operatively. Cite this article:
