Articles   |    
Clinical Results of Modular Polyethylene Insert Exchange with Retention of Total Knee Arthroplasty Components*
Gerard A. Engh, M.D.†; Lisa M. Koralewicz, M.P.H.†; Thomas R. Pereles, M.D.‡
View Disclosures and Other Information
Investigation performed at Anderson Orthopaedic Research Institute, Alexandria, Virginia
*No benefits in any form have been received or will be received from a commercial party related directly or indirectly to the subject of this article. No funds were received in support of this study.
†Anderson Orthopaedic Research Institute, P.O. Box 7088, Alexandria, Virginia 22307.
‡Augusta Medical Center, Suite 110, 93 Medical Center Drive, Fishersville, Virginia 22939.

J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2000 Apr 01;82(4):516-516
5 Recommendations (Recommend) | 3 Comments | Saved by 3 Users Save Case


Background: Modular polyethylene inserts have enabled surgeons to perform an isolated tibial insert exchange while retaining well fixed components. The purpose of this study was to review the results of insert revision and to clarify the role of this option compared with that of revision total knee arthroplasty.

Methods: Fifty-six patients (sixty-three knees) were managed with revision of a tibial polyethylene insert and retention of well aligned and stable femoral and tibial components. The implants had been in situ for an average of fifty-nine months (range, two to 108 months) at the time of the insert exchange. The inserts that were removed at the time of exchange were evaluated with regard to wear of the articular surface according to the classification system of Hood et al. and with regard to undersurface wear according to the method described by Wasielewski et al. Forty-eight knees were followed for an average of 7.4 years (range, 3.0 to 12.2 years) after the insert exchange. Knees that did not require an additional operation were considered to have had a successful exchange.

Results: Seven of the forty-eight exchanges failed, at an average of fifty-four months, because of accelerated wear of the new insert. All seven knees required complete revision of all components. Of the twenty-two exchanges that were performed because of severe wear of the primary insert, six (27 percent) failed at an average of less than five years; thus, knees in which the exchange was performed because of advanced wear were more likely to fail again (p < 0.05). In addition, primary inserts that were removed from knees in which the exchange procedure subsequently failed had higher delamination scores than those that were removed from knees in which the exchange was successful (p < 0.05). Most of the primary inserts had substantial undersurface wear at the time of the exchange procedure. Metallosis (thirty knees) and osteolysis (nineteen knees) were unrelated to failure of the exchange.

Conclusions: An isolated revision of the tibial polyethylene insert should not be performed when there is accelerated wear of the insert with severe delamination and grade-3 or 4 undersurface wear within ten years after the primary procedure. Because a variety of patient-related, implant-related, and technical factors influence polyethylene wear, the orthopaedist must consider multiple variables whenever contemplating a limited revision.

Figures in this Article
    Sign In to Your Personal ProfileSign In To Access Full Content
    Not a Subscriber?
    Get online access for 30 days for $35
    New to JBJS?
    Sign up for a full subscription to both the print and online editions
    Register for a FREE limited account to get full access to all CME activities, to comment on public articles, or to sign up for alerts.
    Register for a FREE limited account to get full access to all CME activities
    Have a subscription to the print edition?
    Current subscribers to The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery in either the print or quarterly DVD formats receive free online access to JBJS.org.
    Forgot your password?
    Enter your username and email address. We'll send you a reminder to the email address on record.

    Forgot your username or need assistance? Please contact customer service at subs@jbjs.org. If your access is provided
    by your institution, please contact you librarian or administrator for username and password information. Institutional
    administrators, to reset your institution's master username or password, please contact subs@jbjs.org


    Accreditation Statement
    These activities have been planned and implemented in accordance with the Essential Areas and policies of the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME) through the joint sponsorship of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons and The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc. The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons is accredited by the ACCME to provide continuing medical education for physicians.
    CME Activities Associated with This Article
    Submit a Comment
    Please read the other comments before you post yours. Contributors must reveal any conflict of interest.
    Comments are moderated and will appear on the site at the discretion of JBJS editorial staff.

    * = Required Field
    (if multiple authors, separate names by comma)
    Example: John Doe

    Related Content
    The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery
    JBJS Case Connector
    Topic Collections
    Related Audio and Videos
    Clinical Trials
    Readers of This Also Read...
    JBJS Jobs
    Oregon - The Center - Orthopedic and Neurosurgical Care and Research
    Ohio - OhioHealth Research and Innovation Institute (OHRI)
    Massachusetts - The University of Massachusetts Medical School