{"title":"[Bone defect management in revision knee arthroplasty].","authors":"Eric Röhner, Markus Heinecke, Georg Matziolis","doi":"10.1007/s00132-021-04181-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In 2019, 124,677 primary total knee arthroplasties and 14,462 revision TKA were performed in Germany. This corresponds to a percentage of 11.6%. According to the EPRD, the probability of further revision surgery after the first exchange operation is around 15%.</p><p><strong>Reasons: </strong>The most common reason for revision surgery is still aseptic loosening with 23.9%. One possible cause could be the difficult fixation of revision total knee arthroplasty. If the bone quality is insufficient, cement-free or cemented diaphyseal anchoring of the prosthesis is often not sufficient to ensure adequate fixation. As a rule, defect management and fixation of the implant are based on the defect situation and the quality of the bone. Therefore, revision total knee arthroplasties based on the fixation principle of Jones et al. should be sufficiently fixed in at least 2 zones.</p><p><strong>Techniques: </strong>There are various techniques for stable anchoring of revision implants. In addition to cemented or cementless stem anchoring, bone allografts, wedges and blocks and, in recent years, cones and sleeves have become increasingly popular. In the present work, the various options for a stable anchoring of revision implants are presented and evaluated. In addition, the clinical and radiological outcome of cones vs. sleeves in bone defect management in revision knee arthroplasty will be compared.</p>","PeriodicalId":54669,"journal":{"name":"Orthopade","volume":"50 12","pages":"1004-1010"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Orthopade","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00132-021-04181-x","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/10/15 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
Background: In 2019, 124,677 primary total knee arthroplasties and 14,462 revision TKA were performed in Germany. This corresponds to a percentage of 11.6%. According to the EPRD, the probability of further revision surgery after the first exchange operation is around 15%.
Reasons: The most common reason for revision surgery is still aseptic loosening with 23.9%. One possible cause could be the difficult fixation of revision total knee arthroplasty. If the bone quality is insufficient, cement-free or cemented diaphyseal anchoring of the prosthesis is often not sufficient to ensure adequate fixation. As a rule, defect management and fixation of the implant are based on the defect situation and the quality of the bone. Therefore, revision total knee arthroplasties based on the fixation principle of Jones et al. should be sufficiently fixed in at least 2 zones.
Techniques: There are various techniques for stable anchoring of revision implants. In addition to cemented or cementless stem anchoring, bone allografts, wedges and blocks and, in recent years, cones and sleeves have become increasingly popular. In the present work, the various options for a stable anchoring of revision implants are presented and evaluated. In addition, the clinical and radiological outcome of cones vs. sleeves in bone defect management in revision knee arthroplasty will be compared.
期刊介绍:
Der Orthopäde is an internationally recognized journal dealing with all aspects of orthopaedics and its neighboring areas. The journal serves both the scientific exchange and the continuing education of orthopaedists.
Freely submitted original papers allow the presentation of important clinical studies and serve scientific exchange.
Comprehensive reviews on a specific topical issue focus on providing evidenced based information on diagnostics and therapy.
Review articles under the rubric ''Continuing Medical Education'' present verified results of scientific research and their integration into daily practice.