Options and limitations of implant constraint.
expert_opinion · Level V
Where this comes from
- Record sourced from PubMed, PMID 33424186.
- Also identified by DOI 10.1016/j.jor.2020.12.013 and PMC identifier 7779836.
- 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
With an ever-increasing number of revisions, the surgeons will be faced with the dilemma of choosing the right implant for the revision knee. The soft tissue viability governs the choice of an implant at the time of revision. The selection ranges from the cruciate-retaining to the rotating/fixed hinge implants. The surgeon needs to plan preoperatively, but usually, the final decisions are made intraoperative. As determining the amount of constraint necessary can be challenging, we have tried to lay down a few pointers, which would help to make that choice. The posterior stabilized implants can manage most revision knees; in certain situations where they cannot accommodate the flexion-extension gap imbalance, a varus-valgus constrained implant should be used. The rotating hinge implants are used for severe instabilities or loss of soft tissue or bone around the knee. The use of a higher constraint implant has its consequences like reduced life span and reduced function. Thus it is crucial to use the least amount of constraint as necessary - however, as much as required.