Gómez-Vallejo J, Albareda-Albareda J, Seral-García B, Blanco-Rubio N, Ranera-García M, Ezquerra-Herrando L

Language: Spanish
References: 22
Page: 222-227
PDF size: 168.43 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Introduction: The reproduction of the anatomical joint line could be a good index to obtain good results in knee prosthesis surgery, although in revision surgery has not been enough studied. A search for a simple and reproducible method is needed to review these results. Material and methods: A retrospective study was conducted between January 2000 and December 2013. A total of 97 total revision knee arthroplasties were implanted. Finally, the study group consisted of 67 patients. To perform our study, the joint line was evaluated according to the method described by Hofmann A. The evaluation of the clinical results included the following main variables: Flexion, extension, range of motion, WOMAC, SF-36, KSS (Knee Society Score) and functional KSS. The survival of the arthroplasties was studied. (p = 0.05). Results: The variables of flexion, extension and range of postoperative movement are statistically correlated with this measure. The KSS was statistically related in its joint aspect with the restoration of the joint line. For the other scales, SF-36 and WOMAC, the figures were higher but did not correlate with the accepted p. Conclusion: In view of these results, we can say that the restoration of the anatomical joint line improves the clinical results of revision total knee arthroplasty.

REFERENCES

1. Figgie HE 3rd, Goldberg VM, Heiple KG, Moller HS 3rd, Gordon NH: The influence of tibial-patellofemoral location on function of the knee in patients with the posterior stabilized condylar knee prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1986; 68(7): 1035-40.

2. Mahoney OM, Kinsey TL: Modular femoral offset stems facilitate joint line restoration in revision knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006; 446: 93-8.

3. Romero J, Seifert B, Reinhardt O, Ziegler O, Kessler O: A useful radiologic method for preoperative joint-line determination in revision total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010; 468(5): 1279-83.

4. Martin JW, Whiteside LA: The influence of joint line position on knee stability after condylar knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1990; (259): 146-56.

5. Hoeffel DP, Rubash HE: Revision total knee arthroplasty: current rationale and techniques for femoral component revision. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2000; (380): 116-32.

6. Yoshii I, Whiteside LA, White SE, Milliano MT: Influence of prosthetic joint line position on knee kinematics and patellar position. J Arthroplasty. 1991; 6(2): 169-77.

7. Hofmann AA, Kurtin SM, Lyons S, Tanner AM, Bolognesi MP: Clinical and radiographic analysis of accurate restoration of the joint line in revision total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2006; 21(8): 1154-62.

8. Luyckx T, Beckers L, Colyn W, Vandenneucker H, Bellemans J: The adductor ratio: a new tool for joint line reconstruction in revision TKA. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2014; 22(12): 3028-33.

9. Ozkurt B, Sen T, Cankaya D, Kendir S, Basarır K, Tabak Y: The medial and lateral epicondyle as a reliable landmark for intra-operative joint line determination in revision knee arthroplasty. Bone Joint Res. 2016; 5(7): 280-6.

10. Scuderi GR, Insall JN: Revision total knee arthroplasty with cemented fixation. Tech Orthop. 1993; 7(4): 96-105.

11. Partington PF, Sawhney J, Rorabeck CH, Barrack RL, Moore J: Joint line restoration after revision total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1999; (367): 165-71.

12. Clarke HD, Scuderi GR: Flexion instability in primary total knee replacement. J Knee Surg. 2003; 16(2): 123-8.

13. Singerman R, Heiple KG, Davy DT, Goldberg VM: Effect of tibial component position on patellar strain following total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 1995; 10(5): 651-6.

14. Babazadeh S, Dowsey MM, Swan JD, Stoney JD, Choong PF: Joint line position correlates with function after primary total knee replacement: a randomised controlled trial comparing conventional and computer-assisted surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2011; 93(9): 1223-31.

15. Clavé A, Le Henaff G, Roger T, Maisongrosse P, Mabit C, Dubrana F: Joint line level in revision total knee replacement: assessment and functional results with an average of seven years follow-up. Int Orthop. 2016; 40(8): 1655-62.

16. Jawhar A, Hutter K, Scharf HP: Are joint line changes after primary navigated total knee arthroplasty predictable? J Orthop Sci. 2015; 20(1): 93-100.

17. Porteous AJ, Hassaballa MA, Newman JH: Does the joint line matter in revision total knee replacement? J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008; 90(7): 879-84.

18. Elia EA, Lotke PA: Results of revision total knee arthroplasty associated with significant bone loss. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1991; (271): 114-21.

19. Mason M, Belisle A, Bonutti P, Kolisek FR, Malkani A, Masini M: An accurate and reproducible method for locating the joint line during a revision total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2006; 21(8): 1147-53.

20. Maderbacher G, Keshmiri A, Schaumburger J, Springorum HR, Zeman F, Grifka J, et al: Accuracy of bony landmarks for restoring the natural joint line in revision knee surgery: an MRI study. Int Orthop. 2014; 38(6): 1173-81.

21. McCarthy CK, Steinberg GG, Agren M, Leahey D, Wyman E, Baran DT: Quantifying bone loss from the proximal femur after total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1991; 73(5): 774-8.

22. Sundfeldt M, Carlsson LV, Johansson CB, Thomsen P, Gretzer C: Aseptic loosening, not only a question of wear: a review of different theories. Acta Orthop. 2006; 77(2): 177-97.