Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a devastating complication following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Two-stage revision has traditionally been considered the gold standard of treatment for established infection, but increasing evidence is emerging in support of one-stage exchange for selected patients. The objective of this study was to determine the outcomes of single-stage revision TKA for PJI, with mid-term follow-up. A total of 84 patients, with a mean age of 68 years (36 to 92), underwent single-stage revision TKA for confirmed PJI at a single institution between 2006 and 2016. In all, 37 patients (44%) were treated for an infected primary TKA, while the majority presented with infected revisions: 31 had undergone one previous revision (36.9%) and 16 had multiple prior revisions (19.1%). Contraindications to single-stage exchange included systemic sepsis, extensive bone or soft-tissue loss, extensor mechanism failure, or if primary wound closure was unlikely to be achievable. Patients were not excluded for culture-negative PJI or the presence of a sinus.Aims
Methods
The aim of this consensus was to develop a definition of post-operative
fibrosis of the knee. An international panel of experts took part in a formal consensus
process composed of a discussion phase and three Delphi rounds.Aims
Patients and Methods
Revision knee arthroplasty presents a number
of challenges, not least of which is obtaining solid primary fixation
of implants into host bone. Three anatomical zones exist within
both femur and tibia which can be used to support revision implants.
These consist of the joint surface or epiphysis, the metaphysis
and the diaphysis. The methods by which fixation in each zone can
be obtained are discussed. The authors suggest that solid fixation
should be obtained in at least two of the three zones and emphasise
the importance of pre-operative planning and implant selection. Cite this article:
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:
This study was undertaken to evaluate the early results of a new implant system - the metaphyseal sleeve - in revision total knee replacement. The femoral and tibial metaphyseal sleeves are a modular option designed to deal with metaphyseal bone loss and achieve cementless fixation over a relatively wide area in the metaphysis. Over three years, femoral and/or tibial metaphyseal sleeves were implanted in 104 knees in 103 patients (54 male and 49 female). The clinical notes and radiographs of these patients were reviewed retrospectively. Thirty one patients had revision for infection, 42 for aseptic loosening, and 31 for instability, pain or stiffness. Eighty nine knees were revised as a single stage and 15 were done as two stage procedure. Minimum follow up is 12 months (average 18.5 months).Purpose of the study
Methods
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.
