Aims

Metaphyseal tritanium cones can be used to manage the tibial bone loss commonly encountered at revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA). Tibial stems provide additional fixation and are generally used in combination with cones. The aim of this study was to examine the role of the stems in the overall stability of tibial implants when metaphyseal cones are used for rTKA.

Instability accounts for approximately 20% of revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) operations, however, diagnostic tests remain relatively subjective. The aim of this examination was to evaluate the feasibility of using pressure mat analyses during functional tasks to identify abnormal biomechanics associated with TKA instability.

Five patients (M = 4; age = 69.80±7.05 years; weight = 79.73±20.12 kg) with suspected TKA instability were examined compared to 10 healthy controls (M = 4; age = 44.6±7.52 years; weight = 70.80±14.65). Peak pressure and time parameters were measured during normal gait and two-minute bilateral stance. Side-to-side pressure distribution was calculated over 10-second intervals during the second minute. Mann-Whitney tests compared loading parameters between groups and side-to-side differences in TKA patients (significance level = p<0.05).

Pressure distribution was expressed relative to bodyweight. Notable differences were seen during bilateral stance. Uneven side loading was greater – favouring the non-operated limb – in TKA patients during bilateral stance compared to controls. This was significantly different at 30s (p=0.0336) and 60s (p=0.0336). Gait analyses showed subtle pressure distribution differences in unstable TKA patients. Stance time was indifferent. TKA patients tended to exhibit longer heel contact time (0.76s vs. 0.64s and reduced weight acceptance (50.75% vs. 56.75%) on the operated limb compared to the non-operated limb. Side-to-side differences in peak toe-off forces were significantly more pronounced in TKA patients versus controls (9.25% +/− 1.5% vs. 1.67% +/−5.79%; p=0.0039).

Conclusion: This feasibility work demonstrates subtle differences in limb loading mechanics during simple clinical tests in unstable TKA patients that might be invisible to the naked eye. In the long-term, pressure analyses may be a useful diagnostic tool in identifying patients that would benefit from revision surgery for TKA instability.

Instability accounts for approximately 20% of all revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA), however diagnostic tests remain crude and subjective. The aim of this examination was to evaluate the feasibility of pressure mat (SB Mat, TekScan) analyses of functional tasks to differentiate instability in a clinical setting. Five patients (M = 4; age = 69.80±7.05 years; weight = 79.73±20.12 kg) with suspected TKA instability were examined compared to five healthy controls (M = 1; age = 46.80±7.85 years; weight = 71.54±16.17 kg). Peak pressure and time parameters were measured during normal gait and two-minute bilateral stance. Side-to-side pressure distribution was calculated over 10-second intervals during the second minute. Pressure distributions were expressed relative to bodyweight (%BW). T-tests compared loading parameters between groups (significance level = p<0.05). Analyses showed subtle differences in pressure distribution in unstable TKA patients versus healthy controls. Stance time during gait was indifferent. TKA patients tended to exhibit longer heel contact time (0.76 vs. 0.64 sec) and reduced weight acceptance (50.75% vs. 56.75%) on the operated versus non-operated limb. Side-to-side differences in toe-off forces were significantly more pronounced in TKA patients versus controls (9.25% vs. 3.75%; p=0.0088). Uneven loading was significantly greater – favouring the non-operated limb – in TKA patients during bilateral stance compared to controls (p<0.05). This feasibility work demonstrates subtle differences in limb loading and biomechanics during simple clinical tests in unstable TKA patients that might be undetectable to the naked eye. Pressure analyses may therefore be a useful diagnostic tool. These findings warrant further investigation.

Patient function is poorly characterised following revision TKA. Modern semi-constrained implants are suggested to offer high levels of function, however, data is lacking to justify this claim.

52 consecutive aseptic revision TKA procedures performed at a single centre were prospectively evaluated; all were revision of a primary implant to a Triathlon total stabiliser prosthesis. Patients were assessed pre-operatively and at 6, 26, 52 and 104 weeks post-op. Outcome assessments were the Oxford Knee Score (OKS), range of motion, pain rating scale and timed functional assessment battery. Analysis was by repeated measures ANOVA with post-hoc Tukey HSD 95% simultaneous confidence intervals as pairwise comparison. Secondary analysis compared the results of this revision cohort to previously reported primary TKA data, performed by the same surgeons, with identical outcome assessments at equivalent time points.

Mean age was 73.23 (SD 10.41) years, 57% were male. Mean time since index surgery was 9.03 (SD 5.6) years. 3 patients were lost to follow-up. All outcome parameters improved significantly over time (p <0.001). Post-hoc analysis demonstrated that all outcomes changed between pre-op, 6 week and 26 weeks post-op assessments.

No difference was seen between primary and revision cohorts in OKS (p = 0.2) or pain scores (p=0.19). Range of motion and functional performance was different between groups over the 2 year period (p=0.03), however this was due to differing pre-operative scores, post-hoc analysis showed no difference between groups at any post-operative time point.

Patients undergoing aseptic revision TKA with semi-constrained implants made substantial improvements in OKS, pain scores, knee flexion, and timed functional performance, with the outcomes achieved comparable to those of primary TKA. High levels of function can be achieved following revision knee arthroplasty, which may be important considering the changing need for, and demographics of, revision surgery.

Summary Statement

Using current analysis/methodology, new implant technology is unlikely to demonstrate a large enough change in patient function to impact on the cost-effectiveness of the procedure.