Clinical Outcomes in Isolated Tibial Revision With Cruciate Retaining Total Knee Arthroplasty

Tracey, Robert W.; Akram, Faisal; Valle, Craig J. Della; Sporer, Scott M.; Berger, Richard A.; Gerlinger, Tad L.

doi:10.1016/j.arth.2021.02.013

Cited by 7 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The present study has limitations, due to the studies involved: among them, the retrospective design with small numbers of patients, relatively short follow-up, lack of control group in some studies [7, 11]. In comparative studies, pre-revision cohorts were not always comparable.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…Three studies described primary knee arthroplasty implants [7, 10, 11]. A large variety of primary knee arthroplasties was implanted, with non-homogenous distribution among comparative trials.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…All the studies reported clinical outcomes. The non-comparative studies reported clinical ameliorations in terms of clinical scores, pain and flexion degree, from the pre-operative scores: in the study with statistical analysis, the improvement was significant (Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Score for Joint Replacement, pre-operative 56.1 vs. post-operative 89.7, p < 0.0001; Knee Society Score, pre-operative 51.6 vs. post-operative 90.1, p < 0.0001; knee flexion degrees, pre-operative 111.7 vs. post-operative 116.4, p < 0.0001) [7, 11]. Among comparative studies, no significant differences in terms of clinical outcomes were observed between partial and complete revision cohorts [6, 9, 10].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…All the six studies reported the rates of re-revisions and the reasons for re-revisions (Table 2). The two non-comparative studies reported a re-revision rate of 4%, with a survival rate for aseptic loosening of 100% at a mid-term follow-up (7.4 and 3.2 years according to prosthetic type and 3.42 ± 2.53 years) [7, 11]. Both the case series reported that instability was one of the main reasons for re-revision (2% and 1.5%), with periprosthetic infection and fracture (2%) [7, 11].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Better clinical scores were noticed in total knee revisions when instability and wear were the reasons for revision [9]. Substantial benefits of partial revisions in well-balanced and aligned knees (and no damage of the retained component) should be related to the potential lower surgical insult, preserved bone stock, lower blood loss, shorter operative time, at the cost of more challenging exposure and more complex knee balancing [6, 7]. The potential benefits of isolated component revision were observed after isolated liner exchange for wear or stiffness: 86% of the implants survived at a minimum follow-up of 10 years [12].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Isolated Femoral or Tibial Component Revision in Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review

Maestri,

Castagnini,

Giardina

et al. 2023

Med Princ Pract

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The purpose of this systematic review is to assess clinical and radiographic outcomes, complications rates, rates and reasons of re-revision of isolated femoral or tibial component revisions, comparing them with total knee revisions. Methods: A review of the published literature was performed using Medline, Embase and Cochrane libraries. The terms “isolate” and “revision” and “knee arthroplasty” or “knee replacement” were together used as MESH terms. Partial knee replacement, non-English literature, case reports and papers published before 2000 were excluded. Results: Out of 911 papers, six papers met the inclusion criteria. Mean MINORS scores achieved quite low values (13.33 and 13.67). No study encompassed revisions for septic loosening or infection. Total revisions performed for instability and wear achieved better clinical outcomes: in the other cases, partial and total revisions showed no differences in clinical outcomes. Both the cohorts showed similar radiographic features. Lesser bleeding and shorter operative times were observed in partial revisions compared to total revisions. The re-revision rates were similar in most of comparative studies: only one study noticed a significant difference in the failure rate between partial (25% at 3 years) and full (7% at 3.5 years) revisions. Conclusions: The poor quality of the studies precluded sound conclusions. Isolated tibial or femoral component revision is an option when the other component is well-fixed and positioned and in absence of chronic periprosthetic infection; nevertheless, it should be carefully evaluated when the reasons for revision are wear or instability.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Isolated Femoral or Tibial Component Revision in Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review

Maestri,

Castagnini,

Giardina

et al. 2023

Med Princ Pract

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

K-TEP-Wechsel bei Instabilität: Diagnostik, Therapie und Ergebnisse

Faschingbauer

Reichel

2021

Orthopäde

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Global mapping of institutional and hospital-based (Level II–IV) arthroplasty registries: a scoping review

Zgouridou,

Kenanidis,

Potoupnis

et al. 2023

Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Four joint arthroplasty registries (JARs) levels exist based on the recorded data type. Level I JARs are national registries that record primary data. Hospital or institutional JARs (Level II–IV) document further data (patient-reported outcomes, demographic, radiographic). A worldwide list of Level II–IV JARs must be created to effectively assess and categorize these data. Methods Our study is a systematic scoping review that followed the PRISMA guidelines and included 648 studies. Based on their publications, the study aimed to map the existing Level II–IV JARs worldwide. The secondary aim was to record their lifetime, publications’ number and frequency and recognise differences with national JARs. Results One hundred five Level II–IV JARs were identified. Forty-eight hospital-based, 45 institutional, and 12 regional JARs. Fifty JARs were found in America, 39 in Europe, nine in Asia, six in Oceania and one in Africa. They have published 485 cohorts, 91 case-series, 49 case–control, nine cross-sectional studies, eight registry protocols and six randomized trials. Most cohort studies were retrospective. Twenty-three per cent of papers studied patient-reported outcomes, 21.45% surgical complications, 13.73% postoperative clinical and 5.25% radiographic outcomes, and 11.88% were survival analyses. Forty-four JARs have published only one paper. Level I JARs primarily publish implant revision risk annual reports, while Level IV JARs collect comprehensive data to conduct retrospective cohort studies. Conclusions This is the first study mapping all Level II–IV JARs worldwide. Most JARs are found in Europe and America, reporting on retrospective cohorts, but only a few report on studies systematically.

show abstract

Clinical Outcomes in Isolated Tibial Revision With Cruciate Retaining Total Knee Arthroplasty

Cited by 7 publications

References 16 publications

Isolated Femoral or Tibial Component Revision in Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review

Isolated Femoral or Tibial Component Revision in Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review

K-TEP-Wechsel bei Instabilität: Diagnostik, Therapie und Ergebnisse

Global mapping of institutional and hospital-based (Level II–IV) arthroplasty registries: a scoping review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About