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.

Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a cost effective and extremely successful operation. As longevity increases, the demand for primary TKA will continue to rise. The success and survivorship of TKAs are dependent on the demographics of the patient, surgical technique and implant-related factors.

Currently the risk of failure of a TKA requiring revision surgery ten years post-operatively is 5%.

The most common indications for revision include aseptic loosening (29.8%), infection (14.8%), and pain (9.5%). Revision surgery poses considerable clinical burdens on patients and financial burdens on healthcare systems.

We present a current concepts review on the epidemiology of failed TKAs using data from worldwide National Joint Registries.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B(1 Suppl A):105–12.

The aims of this retrospective study were to compare the mid-term outcomes following revision total knee replacement (TKR) in 76 patients (81 knees) < 55 years of age with those of a matched group of primary TKRs based on age, BMI, gender and comorbid conditions. We report the activity levels, functional scores, rates of revision and complications. Compared with patients undergoing primary TKR, those undergoing revision TKR had less improvement in the mean Knee Society function scores (8.14 (–55 to +60) vs 23.3 points (–40 to +80), p < 0.001), a similar improvement in UCLA activity level (p = 0.52), and similar minor complication rates (16% vs 13%, p = 0.83) at a mean follow-up of 4.6 years (2 to 13.4). Further revision surgery was more common among revised TKRs (17% vs 5%, p = 0.02), with deep infection and instability being the most common reasons for failure. As many as one-third of patients aged < 55 years in the revision group had a complication or failure requiring further surgery.

Young patients undergoing revision TKR should be counselled that they can expect somewhat less improvement and a higher risk of complications than occur after primary TKR.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014; 96-B:1657–62

We carried out a prospective study to assess the clinical outcome, complications and survival of the NexGen Legacy posterior-stabilised-Flex total knee replacement (TKR) in a consecutive series of 278 knees between May 2003 and February 2005. Mean follow-up for 259 TKRs (98.2%) was 3.8 years (3.0 to 4.8). Annual follow-up showed improvement in the Knee Society scores (paired t-test, p < 0.05). At the last follow-up, the mean maximum flexion was 135° (110° to 150°). Two knees showed radiolucent lines, but revision was not required because the patients were asymptomatic. Revision was required in one case because of infection, but there were no prosthesis-related revisions. There were no other complications. The estimated survival rate at four years with revision for any reason and prosthesis-related problems was 99.6% and 100%, respectively.

This relatively large study indicates that the legacy posterior stabilised-Flex design provides excellent short-term outcome but warrants ongoing evaluation to confirm the long-term durability and functioning of the implant.