Aims. Endoprosthetic reconstruction with a distal femoral arthroplasty (DFA) can be used to treat distal femoral bone loss from oncological and non-oncological causes. This study reports the short-term implant survivorship, complications, and risk factors for patients who underwent DFA for non-neoplastic indications. Methods. We performed a retrospective review of 75 patients from a single institution who underwent DFA for non-neoplastic indications, including aseptic loosening or mechanical failure of a previous prosthesis (n = 25), periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) (n = 23), and native or periprosthetic distal femur fracture or nonunion (n = 27). Patients with less than 24 months’ follow-up were excluded. We collected patient demographic data, complications, and reoperations. Reoperation for implant failure was used to calculate implant survivorship. Results. Overall one- and five-year implant survivorship was 87% and 76%, respectively. By indication for DFA, mechanical failure had one- and five-year implant survivorship of 92% and 68%, PJI of 91% and 72%, and distal femur fracture/nonunion of 78% and 70% (p = 0.618). A total of 37 patients (49%) experienced complications and 27 patients (36%) required one or more reoperation. PJI (n = 16, 21%), aseptic loosening (n = 9, 12%), and wound complications (n = 8, 11%) were the most common complications. Component revision (n = 10, 13.3%) and single-stage exchange for PJI (n = 9, 12.0 %) were the most common reoperations. Only younger age was significantly associated with increased complications (mean 67 years (SD 9.1)) with complication vs 71 years (SD 9.9) without complication; p = 0.048). Conclusion. DFA is a viable option for distal femoral bone loss from a range of non-oncological causes, demonstrating acceptable short-term survivorship but with high overall complication rates. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(3):173–181

Introduction. Revision knee arthroplasty is an increasingly common procedure and can be challenging in the presence of bone defects, ligament instability and soft-tissue deficiencies. Current treatment options in addressing tibial and femoral bone loss in the revision setting include cement, morselised or structural allograft, metal wedges and augments and custom or hinge prosthesis. The aim of this study is to describe our early experience using unique femoral and tibial metaphyseal sleeves as an alternate for dealing with significant tibial and femoral bone loss. Methods. Porous stepped metaphyseal sleeves were implanted during twenty revision total knee replacements in eleven men and nine women who had an average age of 73.3 years at the time of the procedure. The indications included aseptic loosening in nineteen cases and second stage reimplantation in one case. Bone defects in tibia and femur were classified intra operatively according to AORI classification. All patients were prospectively followed clinically and radiographically for a mean follow up of sixteen months (range 12-26 months). Results. There were no periprosthetic fractures or complications related to the insertion and impaction of the sleeves. The mean length of stay was 9 days (range 5-20 days). Clinical review at the latest follow up revealed no evidence of instability and a good final range of motion (mean 0 to 95 degrees). Radiographs demonstrated reestablishment of joint line, neutral mechanical axis (mean -5 degrees valgus) and signs of stable osteointegration. No cases of progressive osteolysis, loosening or subsidence were noted. Discussion. The use of metaphyseal sleeves may facilitate in making revision TKA in the setting of severe bone loss a more reproducible, predictable, and successful option that offers biologic fixation leading to long-term implant stability and survival

Aims

Obtaining solid implant fixation is crucial in revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) to avoid aseptic loosening, a major reason for re-revision. This study aims to validate a novel grading system that quantifies implant fixation across three anatomical zones (epiphysis, metaphysis, diaphysis).

Aims

The aim of this study was to evaluate medium- to long-term outcomes and complications of the Stanmore Modular Individualised Lower Extremity System (SMILES) rotating hinge implant in revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) at a tertiary unit. It is hypothesized that this fully cemented construct leads to satisfactory clinical outcomes.

Aims

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) occurs in approximately 1% to 2% of total knee arthroplasties (TKA) presenting multiple challenges, such as difficulty in diagnosis, technical complexity, and financial costs. Two-stage exchange is the gold standard for treating PJI but emerging evidence suggests 'two-in-one' single-stage revision as an alternative, delivering comparable outcomes, reduced morbidity, and cost-effectiveness. This study investigates five-year results of modified single-stage revision for treatment of PJI following TKA with bone loss.

Aims

Aseptic loosening of the tibial component is a frequent cause of failure in primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Management options include an isolated tibial revision or full component revision. A full component revision is frequently selected by surgeons unfamiliar with the existing implant or who simply wish to “start again”. This option adds morbidity compared with an isolated tibial revision. While isolated tibial revision has a lower morbidity, it is technically more challenging due to difficulties with exposure and maintaining prosthetic stability. This study was designed to compare these two reconstructive options.

Aims

The aim of this study was to assess the effects of transferring patients to a specialized arthroplasty centre between the first and second stages (interstage) of prosthetic joint infection (PJI) of the knee.

Aims

Revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) accounts for approximately 5% to 10% of all TKAs. Although the complexity of these procedures is well recognized, few investigators have evaluated the cost and value-added with the implementation of a dedicated revision arthroplasty service. The aim of the present study is to compare and contrast surgeon productivity in several differing models of activity.

Objectives

Preservation of posterior condylar offset (PCO) has been shown to correlate with improved functional results after primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Whether this is also the case for revision TKA, remains unknown. The aim of this study was to assess the independent effect of PCO on early functional outcome after revision TKA.

Bone loss in the proximal tibia and distal femur is frequently encountered in revision knee replacement surgery. The various options for dealing with this depend on the extent of any bone loss. We present our results with the use of cementless metaphyseal metal sleeves in 103 patients (104 knees) with a mean follow-up of 43 months (30 to 65). At final follow-up, sleeves in 102 knees had good osseointegration. Two tibial sleeves were revised for loosening, possibly due to infection.

The average pre-operative Oxford Knee Score was 23 (11 to 36) and this improved to 32 (15 to 46) post-operatively. These early results encourage us to continue with the technique and monitor the outcomes in the long term.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:1640–4.

We report the results of revision total knee replacement (TKR) in 26 patients with major metaphyseal osteolytic defects using 29 trabecular metal cones in conjunction with a rotating hinged total knee prosthesis. The osteolytic defects were types II and III (A or B) according to the Anderson Orthopaedic Research Institute (AORI) classification. The mean age of the patients was 72 years (62 to 84) and there were 15 men and 11 women. In this series patients had undergone a mean of 2.34 previous total knee arthroplasties. The main objective was to restore anatomy along with stability and function of the knee joint to allow immediate full weight-bearing and active knee movement. Outcomes were measured using Knee Society scores, Oxford knee scores, range of movement of the knee and serial radiographs. Patients were followed for a mean of 36 months (24 to 49). The mean Oxford knee clinical scores improved from 12.83 (10 to 15) to 35.20 (32 to 38) (p < 0.001) and mean American Knee Society scores improved from 33.24 (13 to 36) to 81.12 (78 to 86) (p < 0.001). No radiolucent lines suggestive of loosening were seen around the trabecular metal cones, and by one year all the radiographs showed good osteo-integration. There was no evidence of any collapse or implant migration. Our early results confirm the findings of others that trabecular metal cones offer a useful way of managing severe bone loss in revision TKR.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:1069–74.

We identified 148 patients who had undergone a revision total knee replacement using a single implant system between 1990 and 2000. Of these 18 patients had died, six had developed a peri-prosthetic fracture and ten had incomplete records or radiographs. This left 114 with prospectively-collected radiographs and Bristol knee scores available for study. The height of the joint line before and after revision total knee replacement was measured and classified as either restored to within 5 mm of the pre-operative height or elevated if it was positioned more than 5 mm above the pre-operative height. The joint line was elevated in 41 knees (36%) and restored in 73 (64%).

Revision surgery significantly improved the mean Bristol knee score from 41.1 (sd 15.9) pre-operatively to 80.5 (sd 15) post-operatively (p < 0.001). At one year post-operatively both the total Bristol knee score and its functional component were significantly better in the restored group than in the elevated group (p < 0.01). Overall, revision from a unicondylar knee replacement required less use of bone graft, fewer component augments, restored the joint line more often and gave a significantly better total Bristol knee score (p < 0.02) and functional score (p < 0.01) than revision from total knee replacement.

Our findings show that restoration of the joint line at revision total knee replacement gives a significantly better result than leaving it unrestored by more than 5 mm. We recommend the greater use of distal femoral augments to help to achieve this goal.

We investigated the changes in surface roughness of retrieved femoral components in 18 men and four women at revision knee surgery. The mean age at revision was 68.4 years and the mean period of implantation was for 55.6 months. Eighteen implants were retrieved for aseptic loosening and four for infection. The surface changes in the articulating areas were inspected visually and the roughness (Ra) analysed with a profilometer. Parallel scratching and burnishing were the two main forms of damage. The mean Ra measurements in the articulating areas showed no statistically significant difference when compared with those in a control area on either side of the patellar groove at the apex of the femoral flange. This suggests that it is not essential to revise a well-fixed and correctly aligned femoral component where the polished surface has become burnished or bears fine parallel scratches, if the revision is conducted solely for failure of the tibial component.