This review summarises the opinions and conclusions
reached from a symposium on infected total knee replacement (TKR)
held at the British Association of Surgery of the Knee (BASK) annual
meeting in 2011. The National Joint Registry for England and Wales
reported 5082 revision TKRs in 2010, of which 1157 (23%) were caused
by infection. The diagnosis of infection beyond the acute post-operative
stage relies on the identification of the causative organism by
aspiration and analysis of material obtained at arthroscopy. Ideal
treatment then involves a two-stage surgical procedure with extensive
debridement and washout, followed by antibiotics. An articulating
or non-articulating drug-eluting cement spacer is used prior to
implantation of the revision prosthesis, guided by the serum level
of inflammatory markers. The use of a single-stage revision is gaining popularity
and we would advocate its use in certain patients where the causative
organism is known, no sinuses are present, the patient is not immunocompromised,
and there is no radiological evidence of component loosening or
osteitis. It is our opinion that single-stage revision produces high-quality
reproducible results and will soon achieve the same widespread acceptance
as it does in infected hip arthroplasty.
The potential harm to the growth plate following reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament in skeletally-immature patients is well documented, but we are not aware of literature on the subject of the fate of the graft itself. We have reviewed five adolescent males who underwent reconstruction of the ligament with four-strand hamstring grafts using MR images taken at a mean of 34.6 months (18 to 58) from the time of operation. The changes in dimension of the graft were measured and compared with those taken at the original operation. No growth arrest was seen on radiological or clinical measurement of leg-length discrepancy, nor was there any soft-tissue contracture. All the patients regained their pre-injury level of activity, including elite-level sport in three. The patients grew by a mean of 17.3 cm (14 to 24). The diameter of the grafts did not change despite large increases in length (mean 42%; 33% to 57%). Most of the gain in length was on the femoral side. Large changes in the length of the grafts were seen. There is a considerable increase in the size of the graft, so some neogenesis must occur; the graft must grow.
