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: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:1640–4.

Introduction. The primary aim of this study was to describe a baseline comparison of early knee-specific functional outcomes following revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) using metaphyseal sleeves with a matched cohort of patients undergoing primary TKA. The secondary aim was to compare incidence of complications and length of stay (LOS) between the two groups. Methods. Patients undergoing revision TKA for all diagnoses between 2009 and 2016 had patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) collected prospectively. PROMs consisted of the American Knee Society Score (AKSS) and Short-Form 12 (SF-12). The study cohort was identified retrospectively and demographics were collected. The cohort was matched to a control group of patients undergoing primary TKA. Results. Overall, 72 patients underwent revision TKA and were matched with 72 primary TKAs with a mean follow-up of 57 months (standard deviation (SD) 20 months). The only significant difference in postoperative PROMs was a worse AKSS pain score in the revision group (36 vs 44, p = 0.002); however, these patients still produced an improvement in the pain score. There was no significant difference in improvement of AKSS or SF-12 between the two groups. LOS (9.3 days vs 4.6 days) and operation time (1 hour 56 minutes vs 1 hour 7 minutes) were significantly higher in the revision group (p < 0.001). Patients undergoing revision were significantly more likely to require intraoperative lateral release and postoperative urinary catheterisation (p < 0.001). Conclusion. This matched-cohort study provides results of revision TKA using modern techniques and implants and outlines what results patients can expect to achieve using primary TKA as a control. This should be useful to clinicians counselling patients for revision TKA

Aims. Enhanced perioperative protocols have significantly improved patient recovery following primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Little has been investigated the effectiveness of these protocols for revision TKA (RTKA). We report on a matched group of aseptic revision and primary TKA patients treated with an identical pain and rehabilitation programmes. Methods. Overall, 40 aseptic full-component RTKA patients were matched (surgical date, age, sex, and body mass index (BMI)) to a group of primary cemented TKA patients. All RTKAs had new uncemented stemmed femoral and tibial components with metaphyseal sleeves. Both groups were treated with an identical postoperative pain protocol. Patients were followed for at least two years. Knee Society Scores (KSS) at six weeks and at final follow-up were recorded for both groups. Results. There was no difference in mean length of stay between the primary TKA (1.2 days (0.83 to 2.08)) and RTKA patients (1.4 days (0.91 to 2.08). Mean oral morphine milligram (mg) equivalent dosing (MED) during the hospitalization was 42 mg/day for the primary TKA and 38 mg/day for the RTKA groups. There were two readmissions: gastrointestinal disturbance (RTKA) and urinary retention (primary TKA). There no were reoperations, wound problems, thromboembolic events or manipulations in either group. Mean overall KSS for the RTKA group was 87.3 (45 to 99) at six-week follow-up and 89.1 (52 to 100) at final follow-up (mean 3.9 years, (3.9 to 9.0)). Mean overall KSS for the primary group was 89.9 (71 to 100) at six-week follow-up and 93.42 (73 to 100) at final follow-up (mean 3.5 years (2.5 to 9.2)). Conclusion. An identical pain and rehabilitation protocol used for primary TKA patients can enable certain full-component aseptic RTKA patients to have a similar early functional outcome. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(6 Supple A):96–100

Most problems encountered in complex revision total knee arthroplasty can be managed with the wide range of implant systems currently available. Modular metaphyseal sleeves, metallic augments and cones provide stability even with significant bone loss. Hinged designs substitute for significant ligamentous deficiencies. Catastrophic failure that precludes successful reconstruction can be encountered. The alternatives to arthroplasty in such drastic situations include knee arthrodesis, resection arthroplasty and amputation. The relative indications for the selection of these alternatives are recurrent deep infection, immunocompromised host, and extensive non-reconstructible bone or soft-tissue defects

Aims

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) occurs in approximately 1% to 2% of total knee arthroplasties (TKA) presenting multiple challenges, such as difficulty in diagnosis, technical complexity, and financial costs. Two-stage exchange is the gold standard for treating PJI but emerging evidence suggests 'two-in-one' single-stage revision as an alternative, delivering comparable outcomes, reduced morbidity, and cost-effectiveness. This study investigates five-year results of modified single-stage revision for treatment of PJI following TKA with bone loss.

Aims

The aim of this study was to evaluate medium-term outcomes and complications of the S-ROM NOILES Rotating Hinge Knee System (DePuy, USA) in revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) at a tertiary unit.

Aims

Single-stage revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) is gaining popularity in treating chronic periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs). We have introduced this approach to our clinical practice and sought to evaluate rates of reinfection and re-revision, along with predictors of failure of both single- and two-stage rTKA for chronic PJI.

Aims

Metaphyseal fixation during revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is important, but potentially difficult when using historical designs of cone. Material and manufacturing innovations have improved the size and shape of the cones which are available, and simplified the required bone preparation. In a large series, we assessed the implant survivorship, radiological results, and clinical outcomes of new porous 3D-printed titanium metaphyseal cones featuring a reamer-based system.

Aims

Joint registries classify all further arthroplasty procedures to a knee with an existing partial arthroplasty as revision surgery, regardless of the actual procedure performed. Relatively minor procedures, including bearing exchanges, are classified in the same way as major operations requiring augments and stems. A new classification system is proposed to acknowledge and describe the detail of these procedures, which has implications for risk, recovery, and health economics.

Aims

Debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR) remains one option for the treatment of acute periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) despite imperfect success rates. Intraosseous (IO) administration of vancomycin results in significantly increased local bone and tissue concentrations compared to systemic antibiotics alone. The purpose of this study was to evaluate if the addition of a single dose of IO regional antibiotics to our protocol at the time of DAIR would improve outcomes.

Aims

Stemmed tibial components are frequently used in revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The purpose of this study was to evaluate patient satisfaction, overall pain, and diaphyseal tibial pain in patients who underwent revision TKA with cemented or uncemented stemmed tibial components.

Aims

Aseptic loosening of the tibial component is a frequent cause of failure in primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Management options include an isolated tibial revision or full component revision. A full component revision is frequently selected by surgeons unfamiliar with the existing implant or who simply wish to “start again”. This option adds morbidity compared with an isolated tibial revision. While isolated tibial revision has a lower morbidity, it is technically more challenging due to difficulties with exposure and maintaining prosthetic stability. This study was designed to compare these two reconstructive options.

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 Joint J 2015;97-B:147–9.

Stems improve the mechanical stability of tibial components in total knee replacement (TKR), but come at a cost of stress shielding along their length. Their advantages include resistance to shear, reduced tibial lift-off and increased stability by reducing micromotion. Longer stems may have disadvantages including stress shielding along the length of the stem with associated reduction in bone density and a theoretical risk of subsidence and loosening, peri-prosthetic fracture and end-of-stem pain. These features make long stems unattractive in the primary TKR setting, but often desirable in revision surgery with bone loss and instability. In the revision scenario, stems are beneficial in order to convey structural stability to the construct and protect the reconstruction of bony defects. Cemented and uncemented long stemmed implants have different roles depending on the nature of the bone loss involved.

This review discusses the biomechanics of the design of tibial components and stems to inform the selection of the component and the technique of implantation.