This study aimed to determine outcomes of isolated tibial insert exchange (ITIE) during revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA). From 1985 to 2016, 270 ITIEs were performed at one institution for instability (55%, n = 148), polyethylene wear (39%, n = 105), insert fracture/dissociation (5%, n = 14), or stiffness (1%, n = 3). Patients with component loosening, implant malposition, infection, and extensor mechanism problems were excluded.Aims
Methods
It has previously been shown that higher-volume hospitals have better outcomes following revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA). We were unable to identify any studies which investigated the effect of surgeon volume on the outcome of rTKA. We sought to investigate whether patients of high-volume (HV) rTKA surgeons have better outcomes following this procedure compared with those of low-volume (LV) surgeons. This retrospective study involved patients who underwent aseptic unilateral rTKA between January 2016 and March 2019, using the database of a large urban academic medical centre. Surgeons who performed ≥ 19 aseptic rTKAs per year during the study period were considered HV and those who performed < 19 per year were considered LV. Demographic characteristics, surgical factors, and postoperative outcomes were compared between the two groups.Aims
Methods
Tibial cones are often utilized in revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) with metaphyseal defects. Because there are few studies evaluating mid-term outcomes with a sufficient cohort, the purpose of this study was to evaluate tibial cone survival and complications in revision TKAs with tibial cones at minimum follow-up of five years. A retrospective review was completed from September 2006 to March 2015, evaluating 67 revision TKAs (64 patients) that received one specific porous tibial cone during revision TKA. The final cohort was composed of 62 knees (59 patients) with five years of clinical follow-up or reoperation. The mean clinical follow-up of the TKAs with minimum five-year clinical follow-up was 7.6 years (5.0 to 13.3). Survivorship analysis was performed with the endpoints of tibial cone revision for aseptic loosening, tibial cone revision for any reason, and reoperation. We also evaluated periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), risk factors for failure, and performed a radiological review.Aims
Methods
