[Bone defect management in revision knee arthroplasty].

4区 医学 Q3 Medicine
Orthopade Pub Date : 2021-12-01 Epub Date: 2021-10-15 DOI:10.1007/s00132-021-04181-x
Eric Röhner, Markus Heinecke, Georg Matziolis
{"title":"[Bone defect management in revision knee arthroplasty].","authors":"Eric Röhner,&nbsp;Markus Heinecke,&nbsp;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.

膝关节翻修成形术中骨缺损的处理。
背景:2019年,德国进行了124,677例原发性全膝关节置换术和14,462例TKA翻修手术。这相当于11.6%的百分比。根据EPRD的说法,第一次交换手术后进一步翻修手术的概率约为15%。原因:翻修手术最常见的原因仍是无菌性松动,占23.9%。一个可能的原因可能是翻修全膝关节置换术的固定困难。如果骨质量不足,假体的无骨水泥或骨水泥骨干锚定通常不足以确保足够的固定。通常,缺损的处理和固定是基于缺损的情况和骨的质量。因此,根据Jones等人的固定原则,翻修全膝关节置换术应至少在2个区域进行充分固定。技术:有多种技术稳定锚定修复种植体。除了骨水泥或无骨水泥的骨干锚定外,同种异体骨移植物、楔子和块体以及近年来越来越流行的锥体和套管。在目前的工作中,提出并评估了稳定锚定修复植入物的各种选择。此外,将比较锥形与套筒在修复膝关节置换术中骨缺损处理的临床和影像学结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Orthopade
Orthopade 医学-整形外科
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
62
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信