High Survivorship of Hybrid Fixation Technique in Aseptic Condylar Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty with Minimal Metaphyseal Bone Loss: 5-10 years Clinical Outcomes

H. Matar, R. Bawale, J. Gollish
{"title":"High Survivorship of Hybrid Fixation Technique in Aseptic Condylar Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty with Minimal Metaphyseal Bone Loss: 5-10 years Clinical Outcomes","authors":"H. Matar, R. Bawale, J. Gollish","doi":"10.1615/jlongtermeffmedimplants.2023047031","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of hybrid fixation technique in aseptic condylar revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA). A retrospective consecutive study of patients with minimal metaphyseal bone loss who underwent aseptic rTKA with press-fit cementless femoral stems and short cemented tibial stems. Primary outcome measure was mechanical failure. Surgical complications, reoperations and revision for any cause were collected and Knee society score at final follow-up. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were used to estimate implant survivorship. Seventy-three patients were included with minimum 5 years follow-up with a mean age of 74.5 years. At mean follow-up of 8.5 years (range 5-10), only two patients required revision, both for infection. Radiographic evaluation was undertaken for all remaining patients at final follow-up and showed no evidence of mechanical failure. Six patients (8.4%) showed non-progressive radiolucent lines around the cementless femoral stem with only one having a pedestal at the tip of the femoral stem and four patients (5.6%) showed non-progressive radiolucent lines around the cemented tibial stem. Mean KSS score was 80.6 (standard deviation 13.8) indicating satisfactory clinical outcomes. Using \"any cause implant revision\" as an end point, implant survivorship for this construct was 97.3% at mean 8.5 years. In our experience, a hybrid fixation technique with a press-fit cementless femoral stem and a short-cemented tibial stemmed construct achieves excellent medium- to long-term outcomes in aseptic condylar revision cases with minimal metaphyseal bone loss.","PeriodicalId":16125,"journal":{"name":"Journal of long-term effects of medical implants","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of long-term effects of medical implants","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1615/jlongtermeffmedimplants.2023047031","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Dentistry","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of hybrid fixation technique in aseptic condylar revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA). A retrospective consecutive study of patients with minimal metaphyseal bone loss who underwent aseptic rTKA with press-fit cementless femoral stems and short cemented tibial stems. Primary outcome measure was mechanical failure. Surgical complications, reoperations and revision for any cause were collected and Knee society score at final follow-up. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were used to estimate implant survivorship. Seventy-three patients were included with minimum 5 years follow-up with a mean age of 74.5 years. At mean follow-up of 8.5 years (range 5-10), only two patients required revision, both for infection. Radiographic evaluation was undertaken for all remaining patients at final follow-up and showed no evidence of mechanical failure. Six patients (8.4%) showed non-progressive radiolucent lines around the cementless femoral stem with only one having a pedestal at the tip of the femoral stem and four patients (5.6%) showed non-progressive radiolucent lines around the cemented tibial stem. Mean KSS score was 80.6 (standard deviation 13.8) indicating satisfactory clinical outcomes. Using "any cause implant revision" as an end point, implant survivorship for this construct was 97.3% at mean 8.5 years. In our experience, a hybrid fixation technique with a press-fit cementless femoral stem and a short-cemented tibial stemmed construct achieves excellent medium- to long-term outcomes in aseptic condylar revision cases with minimal metaphyseal bone loss.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
微创干骺端骨丢失的无菌髁翻修全膝关节置换术中混合固定技术的高存活率:5-10年临床结果
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
46
期刊介绍: MEDICAL IMPLANTS are being used in every organ of the human body. Ideally, medical implants must have biomechanical properties comparable to those of autogenous tissues without any adverse effects. In each anatomic site, studies of the long-term effects of medical implants must be undertaken to determine accurately the safety and performance of the implants. Today, implant surgery has become an interdisciplinary undertaking involving a number of skilled and gifted specialists. For example, successful cochlear implants will involve audiologists, audiological physicians, speech and language therapists, otolaryngologists, nurses, neuro-otologists, teachers of the deaf, hearing therapists, cochlear implant manufacturers, and others involved with hearing-impaired and deaf individuals.
期刊最新文献
The Need for Persistence in the Diagnosis of Mycobacterium Tuberculosis Mono-arthritis: A Unique Case Presentation. Association between Gingival Biotype and Crestal Bone Loss in Implants Placed in Anterior Maxilla. Ipsilateral Hip and Knee Reconstruction Using an Intramedullary Total Femoral Replacement System. Ultrasound-Guided Peripheral Nerve Blocks for Hip Surgery: A Concise Perspective. Sucralfate Prevents Pin Site Infections of External Fixators in Open Tibia Fractures.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1