PurposeThe purpose of this study was to evaluate causes and clinical outcomes of revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) with a minimum 2-year follow-up.Materials and MethodsWe performed a retrospective review on the records of 225 revision TKAs performed from 2003 to 2012 at a single institution. Finally, 206 cases were conducted. To evaluate clinical outcomes, we checked the range of motion (ROM), Knee Society (KS) score, Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS) score, and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score preoperatively, 6 months postoperatively and yearly thereafter and complications after revision TKA.ResultsThe causes of revision TKA were septic complications in 120 and aseptic complications in 86. The main aseptic complication was periprosthetic fracture in 36, followed by 25 loosening, 13 polyethylene wear and 9 instability. At the final follow-up, patients showed improvements in ROM and KS, HSS and WOMAC scores. Of the total, 7 patients underwent re-revision due to reinfection in 6 and periprosthetic fracture in 1.ConclusionsDue to development of implants and surgical techniques, mechanical complications such as aseptic loosening and instability that need a revision decreased whereas septic complications relatively increased. Therefore, we should be cautious for the occurrence of infection. Overall, revision TKA provided clinical improvement in knee function and patient satisfaction.

II.

Even though the transportal technique in ACL reconstruction can place the femoral tunnel in a better anatomical position than the transtibial technique, it has risks of a short femoral tunnel and acute angle at the femoral tunnel. Moreover, there was also no difference in the change of the graft length between groups.

BackgroundPersistent pain after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is dissatisfying to the patient and frustrating to the surgeon. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the aseptic causes and clinical course of intractable pain following TKA.MethodsOf the total 2,534 cases of primary TKA reviewed, 178 cases were classified as having aseptic persistent pain that was not resolved within 1 year after surgery. Except for the cases with periprosthetic fracture (56 knees), 122 cases of aseptic painful TKA were divided into two groups: intra-articular group (83 knees) and extra-articular group (39 knees).ResultsIn the intra-articular group, the main reasons for pain were aseptic loosening (n = 40), polyethylene wear (n = 16), instability (n = 10), recurrent hemarthrosis (n = 5), patellar maltracking (n = 4), tendon ruptures (n = 4), and stiffness (n = 2). In the extraarticular group, 10 knees (25.6%) were found to have nerve entrapment in the spine, 6 knees (15.4%) were found to have hip osteoarthritis or femoral head avascular necrosis. The reasons for persistent knee pain in the remaining 23 knees (59.0%) still remain elusive.ConclusionsPersistent pain after TKA originated from pathology of extra-articular origin in a considerable number of cases in this study. Therefore, it is important to perform thorough preoperative evaluations to reduce pain resulting from extra-articular causes. Furthermore, meticulous surgical procedures and optimal alignment are required to reduce pain of intra-articular origin related to implant wear, instability, and patellar maltracking.

PurposeTo compare clinical outcome of revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) between the infected and non-infected groups.Materials and MethodsThis study compared the clinical and radiographic results of 21 infected and 15 non-infected revision TKAs at a minimum 2-years follow-up. Clinical evaluations were assessed using the range of motion (ROM), Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS) score, Knee Society Knee Score (KSKS), Knee Society Function Score (KSFS), and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) score. Radiologic evaluations were assessed using the radiographic results of the American Knee Society and joint line change.ResultsPatients operated for non-infectious causes had significantly better postoperative ROM than the infected group (infected group, 101.7°; non-infected group, 117.8°). The infected group achieved significantly poor HSS (79.2 vs. 85.5), KSKS (75.5 vs. 86.6), KSFS (76.9 vs. 85.5), WOMAC (30.3 vs. 21.2) scores than the non-infected group. Postoperative joint line elevation was lower in the infected versus non-infected group (0.5 mm vs. 2.1 mm), but there was no significant difference.ConclusionsRevision TKA is an effective treatment that can provide successful results in the infected as well as non-infected patients. The overall results of non-infected revision were more satisfactory than infected revision.