Revision total knee arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND Revision total knee arthroplasties are performed with increasing frequency due to the increasing numbers of primary arthroplasties. OBJECTIVES To retrospectively analyze 71 patients who underwent 78 revision total knee arthroplasties during the years 1991 to 1999 METHODS We evaluated the revised knees using the Knee Society Clinical Rating System after an average follow-up period of 3 years and 9 months (2-10 years). The indications for revision included pain and instability, deep infection of the joint, complaints linked to the patella, or post-trauma to the operated knee. RESULTS The average knee score (evaluation of the knee joint itself) calculated after the revision was 74.5. The results on the knee score were excellent (> 85) in 48% of patients and poor (< 60) in 22%. The functional results (patient's ability to walk and climb stairs) were only 48.3. CONCLUSION Although the revision of total knee replacements is known to be problematic, most patients show good results on knee examination, and reasonable functional results given the factors involved.

[1]  G. Bannister,et al.  Infection after total knee arthroplasty. , 2004, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[2]  A. Hofmann,et al.  Treatment of Infected Total Knee Arthroplasty Using an Articulating Spacer , 1995, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[3]  J. Rand,et al.  Cemented long-stem revision total knee arthroplasty. , 2003, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[4]  J. Galante,et al.  Revision total knee arthroplasty with a cemented posterior-stabilized or constrained condylar prosthesis: a minimum 3-year and average 5-year follow-up study. , 1997, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[5]  B. Morrey,et al.  Ardeparin Sodium for Extended Out-of-Hospital Prophylaxis against Venous Thromboembolism after Total Hip or Knee Replacement , 2000, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[6]  W. Bargar,et al.  Incidence and time course of thromboembolic outcomes following total hip or knee arthroplasty. , 1998, Archives of internal medicine.

[7]  R. Gustilo,et al.  Nonconstrained implants in revision total knee arthroplasty. , 1994, Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research.

[8]  R B Bourne,et al.  Principles of revision total knee arthroplasty. , 1998, The Orthopedic clinics of North America.

[9]  D. Schurman,et al.  Complex primary and revision total knee arthroplasty using the condylar constrained prosthesis: an average 5-year follow-up. , 1998, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[10]  A. Hanssen,et al.  Patient Outcome With Reinfection Following Reimplantation for the Infected Total Knee Arthroplasty , 1995, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[11]  T. Thornhill,et al.  Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty After Failed Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty or High Tibial Osteotomy , 1995, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[12]  J. Hirsh,et al.  The incidence of symptomatic venous thromboembolism after enoxaparin prophylaxis in lower extremity arthroplasty: a cohort study of 1,984 patients. Canadian Collaborative Group. , 1998, Chest.

[13]  R. Buzzi,et al.  The Insall-Burstein total knee replacement in osteoarthritis: a 10-year minimum follow-up. , 1999, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[14]  L. Dorr,et al.  Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system. , 1989, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[15]  C. Rader,et al.  The need for a dual rating system in total knee arthroplasty. , 1997, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.