Is a full component revision necessary for isolated tibial loosening?

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

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.

Patient-relevant outcomes following elective, aseptic revision knee arthroplasty: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The aim of this systematic review was to summarise the evidence for the clinical effectiveness of revision knee arthroplasty (rKA) compared to non-operative treatment for the management of patients with elective, aseptic causes for a failed knee arthroplasty.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, AMED and PsychINFO were searched from inception to 1st December 2020 for studies on patients considering elective, aseptic rKA. Patient-relevant outcomes (PROs) were defined as implant survivorship, joint function, quality of life (QoL), complications and hospital admission impact.

RESULTS

No studies compared elective, aseptic rKA to non-operative management. Forty uncontrolled studies reported on PROs following elective, aseptic rKA (434434 rKA). Pooled estimates for implant survivorship were: 95.5% (95% CI 93.2-97.7%) at 1 year [seven studies (5524 rKA)], 90.8% (95% CI 87.6-94.0%) at 5 years [13 studies (5754 rKA)], 87.4% (95% CI 81.7-93.1%) at 10 years [nine studies (2188 rKA)], and 83.2% (95% CI 76.7-89.7%) at 15 years [two studies (452 rKA)]. Twelve studies (2382 rKA) reported joint function and/or QoL: all found large improvements from baseline to follow-up. Mortality rates were low (0.16% to 2% within 1 year) [four studies (353064 rKA)]. Post-operative complications were common (9.1 to 37.2% at 90 days).

CONCLUSION

Higher-quality evidence is needed to support patients with decision-making in elective, aseptic rKA. This should include studies comparing operative and non-operative management. Implant survivorship following elective, aseptic rKA was ~ 96% at 1 year, ~ 91% at 5 years and ~ 87% at 10 years. Early complications were common after elective, aseptic rKA and the rates summarised here can be shared with patients during informed consent.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42020196922.

Comparison of Clinical and Functional Outcomes in One versus Two Component Revision for Total Knee Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Revisions of total knee arthroplasties (TKAs) may require revision of one or both tibial and femoral components. Our purpose was to examine the clinical and functional outcomes in 1- versus 2-component TKA revisions.

METHODS

We identified 92 1-component (tibial or femoral) revisions at a single center. Our inclusion criteria were isolated revision of the tibial or femoral components with a minimum 2-year follow-up. The included cases were matched 1:2 with a control group of 2-component revisions (tibial and femoral) by age, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, and indication for revision. We collected demographics, complications, operative times, any subsequent rerevisions, and functional outcome scores.

RESULTS

The median follow-up time for the 1- and 2-component revision groups were 10 years (range, 3 to 17) and 8 years (range, 2 to 18), respectively. The most common complication after rerevision in both groups was stiffness at 9 of 92 (9.8%) and 9 of 170 (5.3%) in the 1- and 2-component groups, respectively (P = .20). The overall complication prevalence in the 1- and 2- component revision groups was similar 20 of 92 (22%) and 35 of 170 (21%), respectively (P = .87). Subsequent rerevisions for any indication were encountered in 12 of 92 (13.0%) of the 1-component and 18 of 170 (11%) in the 2-component groups (P = .69). There was no statistical difference in survivorship or functional outcomes scores between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Our results showed that isolated revision of a single TKA component is an acceptable option, with comparable functional outcomes, complications, and survivorships when compared with both-component revision. As such, a 1-component revision should be considered where appropriate.

Isolated Versus Full Component Revision in Total Knee Arthroplasty for Aseptic Loosening

BACKGROUND

Revision of both femoral and tibial components of a total knee arthroplasty (TKA) for aseptic loosening has favorable outcomes. Revision of only one loose component with retention of others has shorter operative time and lower cost; however, implant survivorship and clinical outcomes of these different operations are unclear.

METHODS

Between January 2009 and December 2019, a consecutive cohort of revision TKA was reviewed. Univariate and multivariable analyses were used to study correlations among factors and surgical related complications, time to prosthesis failure, and functional outcomes (University of California Los Angeles, Knee Society functional, knee osteoarthritis and outcome score for joint replacement, Veterans RAND 12 (VR-12) physical, and VR-12 mental).

RESULTS

A total of 238 patients underwent revision TKA for aseptic loosening. The mean follow-up time was 61 months (range 25 to 152). Ten of the 105 patients (9.5%) who underwent full revision (both femoral and tibial components) and 18 of the 133 (13.5%) who underwent isolated revision had subsequent prosthesis failure [Hazard ratio (HR) 0.67, P = .343]. The factor analysis of type of revision (full or isolated revision) did not demonstrate a significant difference between groups in terms of complications, implant failures, and times to failure. Metallosis was related to early time to failure [Hazard ratio 10.11, P < .001] and iliotibial band release was associated with more complications (Odds ratio 9.87, P = .027). Preoperative symptoms of instability were associated with the worst improvement in University of California Los Angeles score. Higher American Society of Anesthesiologists status and higher Charlson Comorbidity Index were related with worse VR-12 physical (-30.5, P = .008) and knee osteoarthritis and outcome score for joint replacement (-4.2, P = .050) scores, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Isolated and full component revision TKA for aseptic loosening does not differ with respect to prosthesis failures, complications, and clinical results at 5 years. Poor American Society of Anesthesiologists status, increased comorbidities, instability, and a severe bone defect are related to worse functional improvement.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III, cohort with control.

Comparison of Aseptic Partial- and Full-Component Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) can be performed with isolated tibial, isolated femoral, and combined tibial and femoral component exchange for different indications. Replacement of only 1 fixed component in rTKA leads to shorter operative times and decreased complexity. We sought to compare functional outcomes and rates of rerevision in patients undergoing partial and full rTKA.

METHODS

This retrospective study examined all aseptic rTKA patients with a minimum follow-up of 2 years in a single center between September 2011 and December 2019. Patients were divided into two groups: full rTKA (F-rTKA) if both components (femoral and tibial) were revised and partial rTKA (P-rTKA) if only 1 component was revised. A total of 293 patients (P-rTKA = 76, F-rTKA = 217) were included.

RESULTS

P-rTKA patients had significantly shorter surgical time (109 ± 37 Versus. 141 ± 44 minutes, P < .001). At mean follow-up of 4.2 (range 2.2-6.2) years, rerevision rates did not significantly differ between groups (11.8 Versus. 16.1%, P = .358). Improvements in postoperative Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) pain and Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Scale (KOOS), Joint Replacement scores were similar as well (P = .100 and P = .140, respectively). For patients undergoing rTKA due to aseptic loosening, freedom from rerevision due to aseptic loosening was similar between groups (100 Versus. 97.8%, P = .321). For patients undergoing rTKA due to instability, freedom from rerevision due to instability did not significantly differ as well (100 Versus. 98.1%, P = .683). In the P-rTKA cohort, freedom from all-cause and aseptic revision of preserved components was 96.1% and 98.7% at the 2-year follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Compared to F-rTKA, P-rTKA yielded similar functional outcomes and implant survivorship with shorter surgical time. When indications and component compatibility allow for such a procedure, surgeons can expect good outcomes when performing P-rTKA.

[Revision TKA due to instability: diagnostics, treatment options and outcomes]

BACKGROUND

Instability after primary TKA is a frequent reason for revision surgery. Other mechanisms of failure must be ruled out before an in-depth analysis of instability.

DIAGNOSTICS

Diagnostic tools for instability consist of medical history, clinical examination, and imaging. The clinical examination must focus primarily on the extent of the instability, the location of the instability and the levels of instability. Varus and valgus stress radiographs in the mediolateral plane in extension and flexion, as well as anteroposterior stress images (drawer) are mandatory. In addition, the underlying cause (or a combination of causes) must be defined. Possible causes include malalignment, component malposition (rotation), bony and ligamentous insufficiencies and implant-associated instabilities.

THERAPY

Once the mechanism of failure is understood in detail, various therapeutic options are available. Conservative therapy is only considered in patients where there is borderline instability, and the patient has adequate compensatory options in daily life. Some authors postulate the need for 3 months of conservative therapy in every case before possible surgery. Isolated inlay exchange is usually only a compromise and shows failure rates of up to 60%. Partial component exchange requires some preconditions and is technically demanding.

RESULTS

If the indication is correct, the results are consistently comparable with those after full component revision. In the case of full component revision, attention must be paid to the degree of constraint to achieve stability but also to avoiding over-treatment (too highly constrained TKA with an probability of loosening). In general, the results after revision surgery are worse in cases of instability than in cases of exchange surgery due to aseptic loosening or patellar abnormalities but better than in cases of infection or arthrofibrosis.

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

BACKGROUND

Tibial component loosening is one of the most common modes of failure in contemporary total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Limited literature is available on the outcomes of isolated tibial revision with retention of the cruciate retaining (CR) femoral component. The purpose of this study was to determine the results of isolated tibial revisions in CR TKA.

METHODS

We identified 135 patients who underwent an isolated tibial revision after a primary CR TKA from our institutional registry between January 2007 and January 2017. The mean time between the primary and revision was 2.9 years (range 0.1-15.4). Revision with a press-fit stem was performed in 79 patients and 56 patients were revised with a fully cemented stem. Patients were evaluated at a minimum of two years using Knee Society Score, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Score for Joint Replacement, and radiography. Implant survivorship was determined using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis.

RESULTS

At a mean follow-up of 5.1 years, there were six (4.4%) repeat revisions: three for periprosthetic infection (2.2%), two for instability (1.5%), and one for a fractured tibial stem (0.7%). The mean Knee Society Score and Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Score for Joint Replacement increased from 51.6 and 56.1 preoperatively to 90.1 and 89.7 after surgery (P < .001). Survivorship free of repeat revision for any cause was 93.3% at 5 years, and aseptic revision survivorship was 95.8% at 5 years. No implants were radiographically loose.

CONCLUSION

In patients with isolated tibial loosening and a well-fixed and well-positioned CR femoral component, isolated tibial revision provides excellent early to midterm implant survivorship and clinical outcomes with a low risk of instability and recurrent tibial loosening.