Quality of life and clinical outcome in salvage revision total knee replacement: hinged vs. total condylar design

This study compared the overall outcome after salvage revision total knee arthroplasty using hinged and nonhinged designs. We followed 26 total knee arthroplasties for an average of 20.4 months. The average age was 68.5 years. All patients had a salvage situation secondary to excessive bone loss, enlarged flexion gap, collateral ligament insufficiency, or extensor mechanism insufficiency. Ten patients received a hinged implant after an average of 2.8 prior total knee replacements. Sixteen patients received nonhinged constrained implants after an average of 3.4 prior total knee replacements. The outcome was evaluated using the Hospital for Special Surgery Score (HSS), the Knee Society Score (KSS), the Visual Analogue Scale for pain (VAS), the Tegner Activity Score, the Patella Score, and the Short Form-36 Health Survey (SF-36). There was a statistically significant difference in flexion range of motion between hinged and nonhinged designs (96.5° vs. 107.5°) but not in HSS, KSS, VAS, Tegner Activity Score, or Patella Score. Patients with hinged and nonhinged prostheses had significantly lower scores than an age-matched normal population in physical functioning, role limitations, and bodily pain on the SF-36 survey. However, patients with a hinged implant had no statistically significant difference compared to controls in the mental component summary. In salvage total knee arthroplasty the implant design does not significantly affect the overall functional outcome. However, patients with a hinged implant had significant better scores in the mental components of the SF36 quality-of-life assessment.

[1]  J. Rand Revision total knee arthroplasty using the total condylar III prosthesis. , 1991, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[2]  R. Iorio,et al.  Comparison of the hospital cost of primary and revision total hip arthroplasty after cost containment. , 1999, Orthopedics.

[3]  L. Lidgren,et al.  Validation of the Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Register: a postal survey regarding 30,376 knees operated on between 1975 and 1995. , 1999, Acta orthopaedica Scandinavica.

[4]  H. Cameron,et al.  Hinge total knee replacement revisited. , 1997, Canadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgie.

[5]  R. Iorio,et al.  Comparison of the hospital cost of primary and revision total knee arthroplasty after cost containment. , 1999, Orthopedics.

[6]  R. Barrack,et al.  The use of a modular rotating hinge component in salvage revision total knee arthroplasty. , 2000, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[7]  J. Shaw,et al.  Total knee arthroplasty using the kinematic rotating hinge prosthesis. , 1989, Orthopedics.

[8]  A. M. Bain Replacement of the knee joint with the Walldius prosthesis using cement fixation. , 1973, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[9]  F. Hui,et al.  Hinged total knee arthroplasty. , 1980, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[10]  W. Bugbee,et al.  Does implant selection affect outcome of revision knee arthroplasty? , 2001, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[11]  J. Hassenpflug Starr gekoppelte Knieendoprothesen als Revisionsimplantate , 2000, Der Orthopäde.

[12]  R. Barrack Rise of the rotating hinge in revision total knee arthroplasty. , 2002, Orthopedics.

[13]  C. Ranawat,et al.  Long-term results of the total condylar knee arthroplasty. A 15-year survivorship study. , 1993, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[14]  P. Walker,et al.  Comparison between a Constrained Condylar and a Rotating Hinge in revision knee surgery. , 2001, The Knee.

[15]  V. Goldberg,et al.  The results of revision total knee arthroplasty. , 1988, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[16]  F. Sim,et al.  The Kinematic Rotating Hinge Prosthesis for Complex Knee Arthroplasty , 2001, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[17]  R. Laskin,et al.  Rotating Hinge Total Knee Arthroplasty in Severely Affected Knees , 2000, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.