Long-term results (after a mean 11.3years, and up to 22years, of follow-up) of the Legacy Constrained Condylar Knee (LCCK™) in primary total knee arthroplasty

INTRODUCTION

The use of a sliding prosthesis in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) with increased stress is an intermediate solution in primary surgery, between posteriorly stabilized prostheses and hinged prostheses, in cases of ligamentous laxity and/or loss of bone substance. Favorable results have been reported in the medium term but to our knowledge, this type of prosthesis has not been evaluated in Europe beyond 10 years of follow-up. We therefore conducted a retrospective study in order to carry out: 1) the study of the survival of the Legacy Constrained Condylar Knee (LCCK™) prosthesis in primary surgery, 2) the analysis of complications, functional scores and radiographic data, 3) the analysis of the link between the diaphyseal filling rate and prosthetic loosening.

HYPOTHESIS

The LCCK™ sliding prosthesis with increased constraint has equivalent long-term survival and clinical results to standard posteriorly stabilized TKA and superior to hinged TKA.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

A retrospective series of 141 LCCK™ implanted in 134 patients between 1997 and 2010 was analyzed. Survival was assessed with censoring through an evaluation of partial or total revision of the implants. The functional results were evaluated using the IKS and Oxford 12 scores. Data regarding the Canal Fill Ratio (CFR) and the presence of pathological periprosthetic lines were also collected.

RESULTS

The average follow-up was 11.3±5.3years with a maximum follow-up of 22.7years. Survival at 20years was 90.8% [95% CI: 83.7-95.7]. The rate of early complications was 13.5% (19/141), predominantly comprised of venous thrombosis (6/141), hematomas (3/141 including two requiring surgical drainage), stiffness (3/141) and early infections (3/141). The rate of late complications was 17% (24/141), led by stiffness (4.4%; 6/141), infections (2.9%; 4/141) and hardware failure (2. 2%; 3/141). Ten of the 141 patients (7.1%) had LCCK failure, including 3 (2.1%) for stiffness, 3 (2.1%) for hardware failure, 2 (1.4%) for infection, 1 (0.7%) for laxity and 1 (0.7%) for a periprosthetic fracture. No aseptic loosening was found. The total IKS score went from 65 [0-116] to 143 [79-200] at follow-up, the IKS knee score went from 30 [0-66] to 85 [44-100], and the IKS function score went from 35 [0-70] to 57 [0-100]. The Oxford score went from 14 [2-25] to 34 [15-48] at follow-up. Only two patients (1.4%) presented with a partial periprosthetic line. The tibial CFR was 0.81 and the femoral CFR was 0.76. The influence of the CFR could not be analyzed due to the absence of loosening.

DISCUSSION

The LCCK™ prosthesis in primary surgery has good medium-term survival, a significant improvement in functional scores and a complication rate comparable to posteriorly stabilized prostheses. The complication rate is lower than that of hinged prostheses.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV; single-center retrospective study.

Condylar constrained and rotating hinged implants in revision knee arthroplasty show similar survivorship and clinical outcome: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

In revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) ligament instability and bone defects might require more constraint implants such as a condylar constrained knee (CCK) or rotating hinged knee (RHK). When both implants are suitable, the choice remains controversial. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the survivorship and clinical outcome between CCK and RHK in revision TKA.

METHODS

Systematic literature research was performed. Studies analysing the clinical outcome and/or survivorship of CCK and/or RHK in revision TKA were included. Clinical outcomes included the Knee Society Score, both clinical (KSCS) and functional (KSFS), range of motion (ROM) and reoperations. Survival was defined as the time free from removal or revision of the femoral and/or tibial component.

RESULTS

A total of 40 articles analysing 4.555 knees were included. Survival did not differ between RHK and CCK implants (p = 0.6058), with, respectively, 91.6% and 89.8% survival after 5 years. Postoperative KSCS and KSFS were, respectively, 79.2 (SD 10.7) and 61.1 (SD 21.8) for the CCK group. Similar scores were noted for the RHK group with a KSCS of 80.2 (SD 14.1) and KSFS of 58.5 (SD 17.3). Postoperative ROM was similar for CCK (105.3°, SD 17.1°) and RHK patients (104.1°, SD 16.9°).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis revealed that both survivorship and clinical outcome are similar for CCK and RHK patients for whom both designs are technically suitable and indicated.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Constraint in complex primary total knee arthroplasty: rotating hinge versus condylar constrained implants

INTRODUCTION

Condylar constrained knee arthroplasties (CCKAs) and rotating hinge knee arthroplasties (RHKAs) achieved good outcomes in complex primary total knee arthroplasties (TKAs); however, long-term comparative studies are few. Using an arthroplasty registry, we sought to assess and compare in CCKAs and RHKAs: (1) the intra-operative rates of complications, (2) the survival rates, (3) the reasons for revision, and (4) the adjusted hazard ratios for failure.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

1432 constrained implants in primary TKAs performed for non-oncological indications were included: 703 RHKAs, 729 CCKAs. The two groups were comparable regarding age and gender. Kaplan-Meier curves were used to compare survival rates, multivariate analyses to assess the hazard ratios for failures.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up was 4.1 years (range 0-16.3) for CCKAs and 6.8 years (0-18.1) for RHKAs. The intra/peri-operative complications were similar in both the cohorts, with similar rates of femoral and tibial fractures. 10-year implant survival rates were similar in both the cohorts (91.9%, CI 95% 89.2-93.9% in RHKAs; 93.4%, CI 95% 90.3-95.6% in CCKAs). Periprosthetic infection was the most common reason for revision in the two cohorts, followed by aseptic loosening. Breakage occurred in 3 RHKAs (0.4%). CCKAs and RHKAs had a similar distribution of revision causes. Males aged less than 60 had significantly more failures, regardless the constraint degree. Unstemmed CCKAs significantly failed more than RHKAs and stemmed CCKAs.

CONCLUSIONS

Both modern CCKAs and RHKAs are viable long-term solutions in complex primary TKAs. More failures should be expected in males aged less than 60.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV, Therapeutic study.

Long-term outcomes of one single-design varus valgus constrained versus one single-design rotating hinge in revision knee arthroplasty after over 10-year follow-up

Background

The appropriate degree of constraint in knee prosthetic revision is unknown, necessitating the use of the lowest possible constraint. This study aimed to compare the long-term clinical and survival results of revision with rotation hinge knee (RHK) VS constrained condylar constrained knee (CCK) implants.

Methods

Overall, 117 revision case were prospectively reviewed and dividing into two groups based on the degree of constraint used, using only one prosthetic model in each group (61 CCK vs 56 RHK). All implants were evaluated for a minimum of 10 years. Survival of both implants at the end of follow-up, free from revision for any cause, aseptic loosening, and septic cause was compared.

Results

Better results were seen with use of the RHK in joint ranges of (p = 0.023), KSCS (p = 0.015), KSFS (p = 0.043), and KOOS (p = 0.031). About 22.2% of the cases required repeat surgery (11.7% RHK vs 29.6% CCK, p = 0.023). Constrained condylar implants had a significantly lower survival rates than rotating hinge implants (p = 0.005), due to a higher aseptic loosening rate (p = 0.031).

Conclusion

Using a specific RHK design with less rotational constraint has better clinical and survival outcomes than implants with greater rotational constraint, such as one specific CCK.

Condylar constrained system in primary total knee replacement: our experience and literature review

BACKGROUND

Constrained condylar knee (CCK) prosthesis are common used for revision surgery but can also help surgeons to improve implant stability in primary knee arthroplasty, in fact in severe knee arthrosis with serious deformity associated with a significant instability a more constrained articulation is required. With introduction of second generation of semi-constrained prosthesis, rate of complication is real decreased and a good survival rate and functional score results is showed. In this paper we write about our experience using CCK in primary knee arthroplasty.

METHODS

Between January 2012 and December 2015, 28 second-generation semi-constrained knee arthroplasties were performed as a first implant. Two different types of implants were used: 10 constrained condylar knee (CCK Zimmer) and 18 TC3 (DePuy Johnson & Johnson). All patients were over 75 years old (mean 81.75) with a severe deformity and clinical evaluations at 2-, 6-, 12-month after surgery and every year performed. X-rays at 6, 12 months and then annually was planned with an average follow-up of 31.28 (range 6-48) months.

RESULTS

No patients were lost during the follow-up. The mean functional knee society score (KSS) improved from 30 points preoperatively to 92.1 points at the last follow-up. All patients recovered full extension during follow-up and no radiolucent lines were showed at X-ray control. There were no deep infections or peri-prosthetic fractures.

CONCLUSIONS

Second generation semi-constrained knee prosthesis represent safe and practical treatment in primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in case of severe deformity that can't be managed with accurate soft tissue release, especially in elderly patients.