Aims. Porous metaphyseal cones can be used for fixation in revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) and complex TKAs. This metaphyseal fixation has led to some surgeons using shorter cemented stems instead of diaphyseal engaging cementless stems with a potential benefit of ease of obtaining proper alignment without being beholden to the diaphysis. The purpose of this study was to evaluate short term clinical and radiographic outcomes of a series of TKA cases performed using 3D-printed metaphyseal cones. Methods. A retrospective review of 86 rTKAs and nine complex primary TKAs, with an average age of 63.2 years (SD 8.2) and BMI of 34.0 kg/m. 2. (SD 8.7), in which metaphyseal cones were used for both femoral and tibial fixation were compared for their knee alignment based on the type of stem used. Overall, 22 knees had cementless stems on both sides, 52 had cemented stems on both sides, and 15 had mixed stems. Postoperative long-standing radiographs were evaluated for coronal and sagittal plane alignment. Adjusted logistic regression models were run to assess malalignment hip-knee-ankle (HKA) alignment beyond ± 3° and sagittal alignment of the tibial and femoral components ± 3° by stem type. Results. No patients had a revision of a cone due to aseptic loosening; however, two had revision surgery due to infection. In all, 26 (27%) patients had HKA malalignment; nine (9.5%) patients had sagittal plane malalignment, five (5.6%) of the tibia, and four (10.8%) of the femur. After adjusting for age, sex, and BMI, there was a significantly increased risk for malalignment when a cone was used and both the femur and tibia had cementless compared to cemented stems (odds ratio 3.19, 95% confidence interval 1.01 to 10.05). Conclusion. Porous 3D-printed cones provide excellent metaphyseal fixation. However, these central cones make the use of offset couplers difficult and may generate malalignment with cementless stems. We found 3.19-times higher odds of malalignment in our TKAs performed with metaphyseal cones and both femoral and tibial cementless stems. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(6 Supple A):150–157

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. Methods. This is a retrospective cohort study involving 110 patients with revision TKA with cemented versus uncemented stemmed tibial components. Patients who underwent revision TKA with stemmed tibial components over a 15-year period at a single institution with at least two-year follow-up were assessed. Pain was evaluated through postal surveys. There were 63 patients with cemented tibial stems and 47 with uncemented stems. Radiographs and Knee Society Scores were used to evaluate for objective findings associated with pain or patient dissatisfaction. Postal surveys were analyzed using Fisher’s exact test and the independent-samples t-test. Logistic regression was used to adjust for age, sex, and preoperative bone loss. Results. No statistically significant differences in stem length, operative side, or indications for revision were found between the two cohorts. Tibial pain at the end of the stem was present in 25.3% (16/63) of cemented stems and 25.5% (12/47) of uncemented stems (p = 1.000); 74.6% (47/63) of cemented patients and 78.7% (37/47) of uncemented patients were satisfied following revision TKA (p = 0.657). Conclusion. There were no differences in patient satisfaction, overall pain, and diaphyseal tibial pain in cemented and uncemented stemmed tibial components in revision TKA. Patient factors, rather than implant selection and surgical technique, likely play a large role in the presence of postoperative pain. Stemmed tibial components have been shown to be a possible source of pain in revision TKA. There is no difference in patient satisfaction or postoperative pain with cemented or uncemented stemmed tibial components in revision TKA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(6 Supple A):165–170

Aims. Both the femoral and tibial component are usually cemented at revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA), while stems can be added with either cemented or press-fit (hybrid) fixation. The aim of this study was to compare the long-term stability of rTKA with cemented and press-fitted stems, using radiostereometric analysis (RSA). Methods. This is a follow-up of a randomized controlled trial, initially involving 32 patients, of whom 19 (nine cemented, ten hybrid) were available for follow-up ten years postoperatively, when further RSA measurements were made. Micromotion of the femoral and tibial components was assessed using model-based RSA software (RSAcore). The clinical outcome was evaluated using the Knee Society Score (KSS), the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), and visual analogue scale (pain and satisfaction). Results. The median total femoral translation and rotation at ten years were 0.39 mm (interquartile range (IQR) 0.20 to 0.54) and 0.59° (IQR 0.46° to 0.73°) for the cemented group and 0.70 mm (IQR 0.15 to 0.77) and 0.78° (IQR 0.47° to 1.43°) for the hybrid group. For the tibial components this was 0.38 mm (IQR 0.33 to 0.85) and 0.98° (IQR 0.38° to 1.34°) for the cemented group and 0.42 mm (IQR 0.30 to 0.52) and 0.72° (IQR 0.62° to 0.82°) for the hybrid group. None of these values were significantly different between the two groups and there were no significant differences between the clinical scores in the two groups at this time. There was only one re-revision, in the hybrid group, for infection and not for aseptic loosening. Conclusion. These results show good long-term fixation with no difference in micromotion and clinical outcome between fully cemented and hybrid fixation in rTKA, which builds on earlier short- to mid-term results. The patients all had type I or II osseous defects, which may in part explain the good results. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(7):875–883

Aims. Varus-valgus constrained (VVC) devices are typically used in revision settings, often with stems to mitigate the risk of aseptic loosening. However, in at least one system, the VVC insert is compatible with the primary posterior-stabilized (PS) femoral component, which may be an option in complex primary situations. We sought to determine the implant survivorship, radiological and clinical outcomes, and complications when this VVC insert was coupled with a PS femur without stems in complex primary total knee arthroplasties (TKAs). Methods. Through our institution’s total joint registry, we identified 113 primary TKAs (103 patients) performed between 2007 and 2017 in which a VVC insert was coupled with a standard cemented PS femur without stems. Mean age was 68 years (SD 10), mean BMI was 32 kg/m. 2. (SD 7), and 59 patients (50%) were male. Mean follow-up was four years (2 to 10). Results. The five-year survivorship free from aseptic loosening was 100%. The five-year survivorship free from any revision was 99%, with the only revision performed for infection. The five-year survivorship free from reoperation was 93%. The most common reoperation was treatment for infection (n = 4; 4%), followed by manipulation under anaesthesia (MUA; n = 2; 2%). Survivorship free from any complication at five years was 90%, with superficial wound infection as the most frequent (n = 4; 4%). At most recent follow-up, two TKAs had non-progressive radiolucent lines about both the tibial and femoral components. Knee Society Scores improved from 53 preoperatively to 88 at latest follow-up (p < 0.001). Conclusion. For complex primary TKA in occasional situations, coupling a VVC insert with a standard PS femur without stems proved reliable and durable at five years. Longer-term follow-up is required before recommending this technique more broadly. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(11):921–925

Aims

Obtaining solid implant fixation is crucial in revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) to avoid aseptic loosening, a major reason for re-revision. This study aims to validate a novel grading system that quantifies implant fixation across three anatomical zones (epiphysis, metaphysis, diaphysis).

Aims. Knee osteonecrosis in advanced stages may lead to joint degeneration. Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) for osteonecrosis has traditionally been associated with suboptimal results. We analyzed outcomes of contemporary TKAs for osteonecrosis, with particular emphasis on: survivorship free from aseptic loosening, any revision, and any reoperation plus the clinical outcomes, complications, and radiological results. Patients and Methods. In total, 156 patients undergoing 167 primary TKAs performed for osteonecrosis between 2004 and 2014 at a single institution were reviewed. The mean age at index TKA was 61 years (14 to 93) and the mean body mass index (BMI) was 30 kg/m. 2. (18 to 51) The mean follow-up was six years (2 to 12). A total of 110 TKAs (66%) were performed for primary osteonecrosis and 57 TKAs (34%) for secondary osteonecrosis. Overall, 15 TKAs (9%) had tibial stems, while 12 TKAs (7%) had femoral stems. Posterior-stabilized designs were used in 147 TKAs (88%) of TKAs. Bivariate Cox regression analysis was conducted to identify risk factors for revision and reoperation. Results. Survivorship free from aseptic loosening, any revision, and any reoperation at ten years was 97% (95% confidence interval (CI) 93 to 100), 93% (95% CI 85 to 100), and 82% (95% CI 69 to 93), respectively. No factors, including age, sex, BMI, primary versus secondary osteonecrosis, stem utilization, and constraint, were identified as risk factors for reoperation. Four TKAs (2%) underwent revision, most commonly for tibial aseptic loosening (n = 2). Excluding revisions and reoperations, there was a total of 11 complications (7%), with the most common being a manipulation under anaesthesia (six TKAs, 4%). Mean Knee Society Scores (Knee component) significantly improved from 57 (32 to 87) preoperatively to 91 (49 to 100) postoperatively (p < 0.001). No unrevised TKAs had complete radiolucent lines or radiological evidence of loosening. Conclusion. Contemporary cemented TKAs with selective stem utilization for osteonecrosis resulted in durable survivorship, a low complication rate, and reliable improvement in clinical outcomes. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:1356–1361

Aims

Aseptic loosening is the most common cause of failure following cemented total knee arthroplasty (TKA), and has been linked to poor cementation technique. We aimed to develop a consensus on the optimal technique for component cementation in TKA.

Aims. Varus-valgus constrained (VVC) implants are often used during revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) to gain coronal plane stability. However, the increased mechanical torque applied to the bone-cement interface theoretically increases the risk of aseptic loosening. We assessed mid-term survivorship, complications, and clinical outcomes of a fixed-bearing VVC device in revision TKAs. Methods. A total of 416 consecutive revision TKAs (398 patients) were performed at our institution using a single fixed-bearing VVC TKA from 2007 to 2015. Mean age was 64 years (33 to 88) with 50% male (199). Index revision TKA diagnoses were: instability (n = 122, 29%), aseptic loosening (n = 105, 25%), and prosthetic joint infection (PJI) (n = 97, 23%). All devices were cemented on the epiphyseal surfaces. Femoral stems were used in 97% (n = 402) of cases, tibial stems in 95% (n = 394) of cases; all were cemented. In total, 93% (n = 389) of cases required a stemmed femoral and tibial component. Femoral cones were used in 29%, and tibial cones in 40%. Survivorship was assessed via competing risk analysis; clinical outcomes were determined using Knee Society Scores (KSSs) and range of movement (ROM). Mean follow-up was four years (2 to 10). Results. The five-year cumulative incidence of subsequent revision for aseptic loosening and instability were 2% (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.2 to 3, number at risk = 154) and 4% (95% CI 2 to 6, number at risk = 153), respectively. The five-year cumulative incidence of any subsequent revision was 14% (95% CI 10 to 18, number at risk = 150). Reasons for subsequent revision included PJI (n = 23, of whom 12 had previous PJI), instability (n = 13), and aseptic loosening (n = 11). The use of this implant without stems was found to be a significant risk factor for subsequent revision (hazard ratio (HR) 7.58 (95% CI 3.98 to 16.03); p = 0.007). KSS improved from 46 preoperatively to 81 at latest follow-up (p < 0.001). ROM improved from 96° prerevision to 108° at latest follow-up (p = 0.016). Conclusion. The cumulative incidence of subsequent revision for aseptic loosening and instability was very low at five years with this fixed-bearing VVC implant in revision TKAs. Routine use of cemented and stemmed components with targeted use of metaphyseal cones likely contributed to this low rate of aseptic loosening. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(4):458–462

Aims

One of the main causes of tibial revision surgery for total knee arthroplasty is aseptic loosening. Therefore, stable fixation between the tibial component and the cement, and between the tibial component and the bone, is essential. A factor that could influence the implant stability is the implant design, with its different variations. In an existing implant system, the tibial component was modified by adding cement pockets. The aim of this experimental in vitro study was to investigate whether additional cement pockets on the underside of the tibial component could improve implant stability. The relative motion between implant and bone, the maximum pull-out force, the tibial cement mantle, and a possible path from the bone marrow to the metal-cement interface were determined.

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.

Aims

The main objective of this study is to analyze the penetration of bone cement in four different full cementation techniques of the tibial tray.

Aims

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.

Objectives. Orthopaedic surgeons use stems in revision knee surgery to obtain stability when metaphyseal bone is missing. No consensus exists regarding stem size or method of fixation. This in vitro study investigated the influence of stem length and method of fixation on the pattern and level of relative motion at the bone–implant interface at a range of functional flexion angles. Methods. A custom test rig using differential variable reluctance transducers (DVRTs) was developed to record all translational and rotational motions at the bone–implant interface. Composite femurs were used. These were secured to permit variation in flexion angle from 0° to 90°. Cyclic loads were applied through a tibial component based on three peaks corresponding to 0°, 10° and 20° flexion from a normal walking cycle. Three different femoral components were investigated in this study for cementless and cemented interface conditions. Results. Relative motions were found to increase with flexion angle. Stemmed implants reduced relative motions in comparison to stemless implants for uncemented constructs. Relative motions for cemented implants were reduced to one-third of their equivalent uncemented constructs. Conclusions. Stems are not necessary for cemented implants when the metaphyseal bone is intact. Short cemented femoral stems confer as much stability as long uncemented stems

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.

Aims

To establish our early clinical results of a new total knee arthroplasty (TKA) tibial component introduced in 2013 and compare it to other designs in use at our hospital during the same period.

Aims

Recent total knee arthroplasty (TKA) designs have featured more anatomical morphologies and shorter tibial keels. However, several reports have raised concerns about the impact of these modifications on implant longevity. The aim of this study was to report the early performance of a modern, cemented TKA design.

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

There is little literature about total knee arthroplasty (TKA) after distal femoral osteotomy (DFO). Consequently, the purpose of this study was to analyze the outcomes of TKA after DFO, with particular emphasis on: survivorship free from aseptic loosening, revision, or any re-operation; complications; radiological results; and clinical outcome.

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.

Objectives

Preservation of posterior condylar offset (PCO) has been shown to correlate with improved functional results after primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Whether this is also the case for revision TKA, remains unknown. The aim of this study was to assess the independent effect of PCO on early functional outcome after revision TKA.