Aims

Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a common and safe orthopaedic procedure. Zimmer Biomet's NexGen is the second most popular brand of implant used in the UK. The primary cause of revision after the first year is aseptic loosening. We present our experience of using this implant, with significant concerns around its performance with regards early aseptic loosening of the tibial component.

We retrospectively reviewed 30 two-stage revision procedures in 28 patients performed for fungal peri-prosthetic joint infection (PJI) after a primary total knee replacement. Patients were followed for at least two years or until the infection recurred. The mean follow-up for patients who remained free of infection was 4.3 years (2.3 to 6.1). Overall, 17 patients were assessed as American Society of Anesthesiologists grade 3 or 4. The surgical protocol included removal of the infected implant, vigorous debridement and insertion of an articulating cement spacer. This was followed by at least six weeks of antimicrobial treatment and delayed reimplantation in all patients. The mean interval between removal of the prosthesis and reimplantation was 9.5 weeks (6 to 24). After reimplantation, patients took antifungal agents orally for a maximum of six months. Two knees became reinfected at one and two months post-operatively, respectively: one of these subsequently required arthrodesis because of uncontrolled infection.

Fungal PJIs can be treated successfully by removal of all infected material, appropriate antimicrobial treatment and delayed reimplantation.

We compared the results of 146 patients who received an anatomic modular knee fixed-bearing total knee replacement (TKR) in one knee and a low contact stress rotating platform mobile-bearing TKR in the other. There were 138 women and eight men with a mean age of 69.8 years (42 to 80). The mean follow-up was 13.2 years (11.0 to 14.5). The patients were assessed clinically and radiologically using the rating systems of the Hospital for Special Surgery and the Knee Society at three months, six months, one year, and annually thereafter.

The assessment scores of both rating systems pre-operatively and at the final review did not show any statistically significant differences between the two designs of implant. In the anatomic modular knee group, one knee was revised because of aseptic loosening of the tibial component and one because of infection. In addition, three knees were revised because of wear of the polyethylene tibial bearing. In the low contact stress group, two knees were revised because of instability requiring exchange of the polyethylene insert and one because of infection.

The radiological analysis found no statistical difference in the incidence of radiolucent lines at the final review (Student’s t-test, p = 0.08), most of which occurred at tibial zone 1. The Kaplan-Meier survivorship for aseptic loosening of the anatomic modular knee and the low contact stress implants at 14.5 years was 99% and 100%, respectively, with a 95% confidence interval of 94% to 100% for both designs.

We found no evidence of the superiority of one design over the other at long-term follow-up.

We conducted a randomised prospective study to evaluate the clinical and radiological results of a mobile- and fixed-bearing total knee replacement of similar design in 174 patients who had bilateral simultaneous knee replacement. The mean follow-up was for 5.6 years (5.2 to 6.1).

The total knee score, pain score, functional score and range of movement were not statistically different (p > 0.05) between the two groups. Osteolysis was not seen in any knee in either group. Two knees (1%) in the mobile-bearing group required revision because of infection; none in the fixed-bearing group needed revision. Excellent results can be achieved with both mobile- and fixed-bearing prostheses of similar design at mid-term follow-up. We could demonstrate no significant clinical advantage for a mobile bearing.