0
Scientific Article   |    
The Effectiveness of Isolated Tibial Insert Exchange in Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty
George C. Babis, MD; Robert T. Trousdale, MD; Bernard F. Morrey, MD
View Disclosures and Other Information
Investigation performed at the Mayo Clinic and Mayo Foundation, Rochester, Minnesota

George C. Babis, MD
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Athens, "KAT" Accident Hospital, 2 Nikis Str., GR 145 61 Kifissia, Athens, Greece

Robert T. Trousdale, MD
Bernard F. Morrey, MD
Department of Orthopedics, Mayo Clinic and Mayo Foundation, 200 First Street S.W., Rochester, MN 55905

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.

J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2002 Jan 01;84(1):64-68
5 Recommendations (Recommend) | 3 Comments | Saved by 3 Users Save Case

Abstract

Background: Despite improvements in the design and manufacturing of the components used in total knee arthroplasty, wear of the polyethylene bearing remains a potential source of failure. One theoretical advantage of modular tibial implants is that, when the components are well fixed, patients with wear or instability of the tibial insert can be treated with isolated polyethylene exchange. The aim of this study was to assess the results of isolated tibial insert exchange during revision surgery in a relatively large, consecutive group of patients.

Methods: From 1985 through 1997, we performed fifty-six isolated tibial insert exchanges in fifty-five patients (twenty-nine men [one man had bilateral revision] and twenty-six women; mean age, sixty-six years) primarily because of wear or instability. Patients with loosening of any of the components, a history of infection, severe stiffness of the knee, recognized malposition of any component, or problems with the extensor mechanism were excluded. Twelve knees had had one, two, or three prior revisions. The duration of follow-up averaged 8.3 years (range, 1.6 to 16.2 years) after the index arthroplasty and 4.6 years (range, two to fourteen years) after the revision.

Results: The mean Knee Society knee and function scores improved from 56 and 50.9 points prior to the revision to 76 and 59 points at the time of final follopcow-up. Fourteen (25%) of the fifty-six knees subsequently required rerevision at a mean of only three years (range, 0.5 to 6.8 years) after the tibial insert exchange. The cumulative survival rate at 5.5 years was 63.5% (95% confidence interval, 14.4%, with nineteen patients remaining at risk). Of the twenty-seven knees with preoperative instability, eight were rerevised and another four were considered failures because of severe pain. Of the twenty-four knees that were treated with the index revision because of wear of the insert, five were rerevised. In addition, one extremity in this group was amputated above the knee as a result of chronic osteomyelitis of the ankle concomitant with chronic pain at the site of the total knee arthroplasty and another two inserts were considered failures because of severe pain.

Conclusions: Isolated tibial insert exchange led to a surprisingly high rate of early failure. Tibial insert exchange as an isolated method of total knee revision should therefore be undertaken with caution even in circumstances for which the modular insert was designed and believed to be of greatest value.

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

    References

    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





    The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery
    JBJS Case Connector
    Related Content
    Topic Collections
    Related Audio and Videos
    Clinical Trials
    Readers of This Also Read...
    jbjs jobs
    04/09/2013
    Pennsylvania - Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center
    06/18/2013
    WA - University of Washington
    12/26/2012
    LA - Ochsner Health System
    01/02/2013
    PA - The Orthopaedic & Rehabilitation Institute at Allegheny General Hospital