Revision knee arthroplasty for bone loss: choosing the right degree of constraint.
retrospective_cohort · Level III
Where this comes from
- Record sourced from PubMed, PMID 23743510.
- Also identified by DOI 10.1016/j.arth.2013.04.042.
- No licence information is recorded for this record.
- Because redistribution is not established, this page shows the abstract only. Follow the links below for the full text.
Abstract
Revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in the setting of bone deficiency requires varied levels of constraint to restore knee stability. However, the outcomes between different levels remain controversial. Clinical outcomes for 183 AORI Type I knees, 168 Type II knees and 124 Type III knees utilizing posterior stabilized (PS), unlinked constrained (UC) or hinged prostheses were evaluated with standardized clinical assessment tools and radiographic results over an average of 7.4 years. PS yielded superior knee scores in AORI Type I patients (P<0.05), UC in Type II and III aseptic patients (P<0.05), and a hinge was preferred in septic Type II or III knees (P<0.05). Revision TKA conducted with increased constraint appears effective in the setting of increased bone deficiency.
Medical subject headings
- Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee
- Bone Resorption
- Joint Instability
- Knee Joint
- Knee Prosthesis
Anatomy
- knee