These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Hinged versus CCK revision arthroplasty for the stiff total knee.
    Author: Hermans K, Vandenneucker H, Truijen J, Oosterbosch J, Bellemans J.
    Journal: Knee; 2019 Jan; 26(1):222-227. PubMed ID: 30415974.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) remains the gold standard for end-stage knee osteoarthritis. The prevalence of stiffness after this procedure described in literature varies from 1.3% to 5.3%. The causes of arthrofibrosis after total knee arthroplasty are multifactorial. Revision TKA is a successful procedure when performed for loosening, instability, mechanical implant failure, or infection. The results of revision TKA for idiopathic arthrofibrosis and stiffening are however less favorable. PURPOSE: It has been the authors' impression that the poor results in arthrofibrosis could be in part related to the use of traditional PS or CCK-type revision implants. Our hypothesis is that better results can be achieved in case a rotating hinge design (RHK) is used. The reason could be that RHK designs allow for much more aggressive capsuloligament debridement and therefore more adequate fibrosis removal, while securing optimal implant stability, tibiofemoral rotational freedom, and flexion-extension space stability. The purpose of our study was to investigate in our database whether this hypothesis is correct. METHODS: Retrospectively, 40 patients with the defined range of knee motion were identified. Patients with underlying mechanical malalignment, component malposition, soft-tissue imbalance or infections were excluded. Twenty-two patients received a hinged-type prosthetic device (18 Zimmer RHK, four Stryker RHK) and 18 patients received a less constrained condylar type prosthetic device (17 Legion CCK, one Vanguard CCK). RESULTS: Preoperative data were similar for RHK as CCK-type implants except for knee pain score, which was significantly worse for the RHK group (36 vs 44, p = 0.049). At two years of follow-up, compared to CCK, the RHK group demonstrated significantly better postoperative results for knee function scores (68.9 vs 54.2, p = 0.0015), knee function improvement (22.8 vs 4.8, p = 0.0015), knee pain improvement (26.4 vs 9.4, p = 0.0050), greater maximal flexion (99.9° vs 81.4°, p = 0.0005), better maximal extension (-1.9° vs -6.2°, p = 0.0447), greater flexion gain (35.8° vs 14.2°, p = 0.0002), and greater extension gain (8.6° vs 2.0°, p = 0.0083). CONCLUSION: Our data show that revision arthroplasty of the stiff knee using a rotating hinged device can provide excellent results in selected cases. To date, this is the first study to describe the difference in outcome between revision total knee arthroplasty for idiopathic arthrofibrosis using a hinged or a constrained condylar knee device.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]