Predisposing factors which are relevant for the clinical outcome after revision total knee arthroplasty

Hardeman, F.; Londers, Jürgen; Favril, Alexander; Witvrouw, Erik; Bellemans, Johan; Victor, Jan

doi:10.1007/s00167-011-1624-8

Cited by 65 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The paper was primarily focused on overall results of the knee revisions and on the possible validity of a selection algorithm for constraint choice rather than on assessment of the different factors potentially influencing the revision. However, predisposing factors which are relevant for the clinical outcome after revision TKA have been recently reported [26,27].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Constraint choice in revision knee arthroplasty

Vasso

Beaufils

Panni

2013

International Orthopaedics (SICOT)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Along with the increase in primary total knee arthroplasty, there has been an increase in the number of revisions. The aim of this study was to propose a selection algorithm for the knee revision constraint according to the state of ligaments and to the bone defects Anderson Orthopaedic Research Institute Classification [AORI] classification. The hypothesis was that this algorithm would facilitate the appropriate choice of prosthesis constraint, thus providing stable components and a good long-term survivorship of the knee revisions. Methods Sixty consecutive revision knee arthroplasties in 57 patients were prospectively evaluated. Prostheses implanted at revision included postero-stabilised, condylar constrained and rotating hinged, relative to the state of the ligaments and of the bone loss around the knee. The median follow-up was nine years (range, 4-12). Results The median IKS knee and function scores and HSS score were 41 (15-62), 21.5 (12-43) and 34 (23-65) points, respectively, before the operation, and 81 (48-97), 79 (56-92) and 83.5 (62-98) points (p<0.001) at the latest followup evaluation. The median ROM increased from 74°(29-110°) preoperatively to 121°(98-132°) (p<0.01) at the final follow-up. Re-revision was necessary in five (8.3 %) patients. Conclusions A selection algorithm for the revision implant constraint based on the state of ligaments and the bone loss AORI classification could provide stable knee reconstructions and long-term success of knee revisions.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Constraint choice in revision knee arthroplasty

Vasso

Beaufils

Panni

2013

International Orthopaedics (SICOT)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Patients with low KSS scores (Knee Society Score) before revision total arthroplasty also had lower scores after the revision. However, the improvement in score in this group was significantly higher than for patients who had had higher values at the start of the study (Hardeman et al 2012). …”

Section: J Reasons For Revision Total Arthroplastymentioning

confidence: 64%

“…The correlation between the time of revision surgery and the quality of the resulting outcome was investigated in a further study (Hardeman et al 2012). Early revision total arthroplasty taking place less than two years after primary replacement had higher failure rates than revision total arthroplasty carried out later.…”

Section: J Reasons For Revision Total Arthroplastymentioning

confidence: 99%

Status of Healthcare

Weißer¹,

Zerwes²,

Krupka

et al. 2018

White Paper on Joint Replacement

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Use of long stems may block stress distribution and negatively affect prosthesis fixation, thereby cause osteopenia and periprosthetic fractures. In their study in 40 cases underwent revision with cemented long stem, Murray et al (9)(10)(11)(12)(13) (18) have treated the infected knee prostheses using antibiotic-loaded spacer, and observed the re-infection rate to be 17%. For two-stage revision operations, two methods with and without antibiotic-loaded spacer have been described in the literature (18).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%