Purpose Revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) is a complex procedure. Depending on the degree of ligament and bone damage, either primary or revision implants are used. The purpose of this study was to compare survival rates of primary implants with revision implants when used during rTKA. Methods A retrospective comparative study was conducted between 1998 and 2009 during which 69 rTKAs were performed on 65 patients. Most common indications for revision were infection (30 %), aseptic loosening (25 %) and wear/ osteolysis (25 %). During rTKA, a primary implant was used in nine knees and a revision implant in 60. Results Survival of primary implants was 100 % at one year, 73 % [95 % confidence interval (CI) 41-100] at two years and 44 % (95 % CI 7-81) at five years. Survival of revision implants was 95 % (95 % CI 89-100) at one year, 92 % (95 % CI 84-99) at two years and 92 % (95 % CI 84-99) at five years. Primary implants had a significantly worse survival rate than revision implants when implanted during rTKA [P00.039 (hazard ratio04.56, 95 % CI 1.08-19.27)]. Conclusions Based on these results, it has to be considered whether primary implants are even an option during rTKA.

IntroductionThe EOS stereoradiography system has shown to provide reliable varus/valgus (VV) measurements of the lower limb in 2D (VV2D) and 3D (VV3D) after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Validity of these measurements has not been investigated yet, therefore the purpose of this study was to determine validity of EOS VV2D and VV3D.MethodsEOS images were made of a lower limb phantom containing a knee prosthesis, while varying VV angle from 15° varus to 15° valgus and flexion angle from 0° to 20°, and changing rotation from 20° internal to 20° external rotation. Differences between the actual VV position of the lower limb phantom and its position as measured on EOS 2D and 3D images were investigated.ResultsRotation, flexion or VV angle alone had no major impact on VV2D or VV3D. Combination of VV angle and rotation with full extension did not show major differences in VV2D measurements either. Combination of flexion and rotation with a neutral VV angle showed variation of up to 7.4° for VV2D; maximum variation for VV3D was only 1.5°. A combination of the three variables showed an even greater distortion of VV2D, while VV3D stayed relatively constant. Maximum measurement difference between preset VV angle and VV2D was 9.8°, while the difference with VV3D was only 1.9°. The largest differences between the preset VV angle and VV2D were found when installing the leg in extreme angles, for example 15° valgus, 20° flexion and 20° internal rotation.ConclusionsAfter TKA, EOS VV3D were more valid than VV2D, indicating that 3D measurements compensate for malpositioning during acquisition. Caution is warranted when measuring VV angle on a conventional radiograph of a knee with a flexion contracture, varus or valgus angle and/or rotation of the knee joint during acquisition.

More studies of high methodologic quality and with a sample size calculation based on the outcome measures will be helpful to assess whether an imageless CAS TKA improves femoral and tibial rotational alignment and tibiofemoral mismatch or decreases the number of femoral and tibial rotational outliers. To statistically analyze the results of different studies, the same measurement protocol should be used among the studies.