Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®
Published in: Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® 3/2011

01-03-2011 | Clinical Research

Modified Hybrid Stem Fixation in Revision TKA is Durable at 2 to 10 Years

Authors: Alexander P. Sah, MD, Sanjai Shukla, MD, Craig J. Della Valle, MD, Aaron G. Rosenberg, MD, Wayne G. Paprosky, MD

Published in: Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® | Issue 3/2011

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Hybrid revision knee component fixation, in which cement is placed in the metaphysis combined with a cementless diaphyseal engaging stem, provides ease of insertion, possibly improved component alignment, and easier removal if required, compared with fully cemented prostheses. The literature suggests the technique has a 2 to 5 year survivorship ranging from 81% to 94%.

Questions/purposes

To confirm the literature we asked whether (1) a modified hybrid fixation technique is durable and reliable at an average 5-year followup, (2) this method of fixation provides clinical improvements as assessed by knee scores, (3) there are radiographic findings unique to this fixation technique, (4) the degree of knee constraint influences clinical performance or radiographic findings, and (5) end-of-stem pain is associated with this fixation method?

Patients and Methods

We retrospectively reviewed all 83 patients who had 88 both-component revision TKAs using our modified hybrid fixation technique. We assessed the Knee Society scores and evaluated radiographs for radiolucent and radiosclerotic lines. The minimum followup was 24 months (average, 65 months; range, 24–126 months).

Results

Kaplan-Meier survivorship free of aseptic loosening was 100% at 5 years and 90% at 10 years. Postoperatively, the mean Knee Society pain and function scores both improved. Partial radiolucent lines were rare; two components were loose. We commonly observed radiosclerotic lines adjacent to stem extensions but these did not affect clinical scores or implant stability at last followup. Neither knee scores nor radiographic findings differed based on knee constraint. End-of-stem pain occurred rarely and was transient.

Conclusions

Modified hybrid fixation of revision knee arthroplasty using a diaphyseal engaging stem and cementation only in the metaphysis is durable at a mean 5 years followup.

Level of Evidence

Level IV, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
Literature
1.
Albrektsson BE, Ryd L, Carlsson LV, Freeman MA, Herberts P, Regner L, Selvik G. The effect of a stem on the tibial component of knee arthroplasty: a roentgen stereophotogrammetric study of uncemented tibial components in the Freeman-Samuelson knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1990;72:252–258.PubMed
2.
Backstein D, Safir O, Gross A. Management of bone loss: structural grafts in revision total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;446:104–112.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Barrack RL, Engh G, Rorabeck C, Sawhney J, Woolfrey M. Patient satisfaction and outcome after septic versus aseptic revision total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2000;15:990–993.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Barrack RL, Stanley T, Burt M, Hopkins S. The effect of stem design on end-of-stem pain in revision total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2004;19(7 suppl 2):119–124.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Bertin KC, Freeman MA, Samuelson KM, Ratlcliffe SS, Todd RC. Stemmed revision arthroplasty for aseptic loosening of total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1985;67:242–248.PubMed
6.
Bezwada HP, Nazarian DG, Booth RE Jr. Simultaneous revision and contralateral primary total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85:1993–1998.PubMed
7.
Bostrom MP, Haas SB. Revision total knee arthroplasty due to aseptic failure. Am J Knee Surg. 1996;9:91–98.PubMed
8.
Bottner F, Laskin R, Windsor RE, Haas SB. Hybrid component fixation in revision total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;446:127–131.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Bourne RB, Finlay JB. The influence of tibial component intramedullary stems and implant-cortex contact on the strain distribution of the proximal tibia following total knee arthroplasty: an in vitro study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1986;208:95–99.PubMed
10.
Brooks PJ, Walker PS. Scott RD. Tibial component fixation in deficient tibial bone stock. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1984;184:302–308.PubMed
11.
Conditt MA, Parsley BS, Alexander JW, Doherty SD, Noble PC. The optimal strategy for stable tibial fixation in revision total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2004;19(7 suppl 2):113–118.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Elia EA, Lotke PA. Results of revision total knee arthroplasty associated with significant bone loss. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1991;271:114–121.PubMed
13.
Engh GA. Bone defect classification. In: Engh GA Rorabeck CH, eds. Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty. Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins; 1997:63–120.
14.
Fehring TK, Odum S, Olekson C, Griffin WL, Mason JB, McCoy TH. Stem fixation in revision total knee arthroplasty: a comparative analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003;416:217–224.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Fleming TR, Lin DY. Survival analysis in clinical trials: past developments and future directions. Biometrics. 2000;56:971–983.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Font-Rodriguez DE, Scuderi GR, Insall JN. Survivorship of cemented total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1997;345:79–86.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Friedman RJ, Hirst P, Poss R, Kelley K, Sledge CB. Results of revision total knee arthroplasty performed for aseptic loosening. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1990;255:235–241.PubMed
18.
Gofton WT, Tsigaras H, Butler RA, Patterson JJ, Barrack RL, Rorabeck CH. Revision total knee arthroplasty: fixation with modular stems. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2002;404:158–168.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Haas SB, Insall JN, Montgomery W 3rd, Windsor RE. Revision total knee arthroplasty with use of modular components with stems inserted without cement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1995;77:1700–1707.PubMed
20.
Jazrawi LM, Bai B, Kummer FJ, Hiebert R, Stuchin SA. The effect of stem modularity and mode of fixation on tibial component stability in revision total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2001;16:759–767.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Khaw FM, Kirk LM, Gregg PJ. Survival analysis of cemented Press-Fit Condylar total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2001;16:161–167.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Kim YH, Kim JS. Revision total knee arthroplasty with use of a constrained condylar knee prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91:1440–1447.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, Mowat F, Halpern M. Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89:780–785.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Mabry TM, Vessely MB, Schleck CD, Harmsen WS, Berry DJ. Revision total knee arthroplasty with modular cemented stems: long-term follow-up. J Arthroplasty. 2007;22(6 suppl 2):100–105.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Mihalko WM, Krackow KA. Flexion and extension gap balancing in revision total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;446:121–126.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Mow CS, Wiedel JD. Noncemented revision total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994;309:110–115.PubMed
27.
Murray PB, Rand JA, Hanssen AD. Cemented long-stem revision total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994;309:116–123.PubMed
28.
Parsley BS, Sugano N, Bertolusso R, Conditt MA. Mechanical alignment of cementless stems in revision total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2003;18(7 suppl 1):33–36.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Peters CL, Erickson J, Kloepper RG, Mohr RA. Revision total knee arthroplasty with modular components inserted with metaphyseal cement and stems without cement. J Arthroplasty. 2005;20:302–308.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Peters CL, Erickson JA, Gililland JM. Clinical and radiographic results of 184 consecutive revision total knee arthroplasties placed with modular cementless stems. J Arthroplasty. 2009;24(6 suppl):48–53.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Peters CL, Hennessey R, Barden RM, Galante JO, Rosenberg AG. Revision total knee arthroplasty with a cemented poster-stabilized or constrained condylar prosthesis: a minimum 3-year and average 5-year follow-up study. J Arthroplasty. 1997;12:896–903.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Reilly D, Walker PS, Ben-Dov M, Ewald FC. Effects of tibial components on load transfer in the upper tibia. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1982;165:273–282.PubMed
33.
Shannon BD, Klassen JF, Rand JA, Berry DJ, Trousdale RT. Revision total knee arthroplasty with cemented components and uncemented intramedullary stems. J Arthroplasty. 2003;18(7 suppl 1):27–32.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Sheng P, Lehto M, Kataja M, Halonen P, Moilanen T, Pajamaki J. Patient outcome following revision total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis. Int Orthop. 2004;28:78–81.CrossRefPubMed
35.
van Loon CJ, Kyriazopoulos A, Verdonschot N, de Waal Malefijt MC, Huiskes R, Buma P. The role of femoral stem extension in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2000;378:282–289.CrossRefPubMed
36.
Vince KG, Long W. Revision knee arthroplasty: the limits of press fit medullary fixation. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1995;317:172–177.PubMed
37.
Whaley AL, Trousdale RT, Rand JA, Hanssen AD. Cemented long-stem revision total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2003;18:592–599.CrossRefPubMed
38.
Whiteside LA. Cementless revision knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1993;286:160–167.PubMed
39.
Wood GC, Naudie DD, MacDonald SJ, McCalden RW, Bourne RB. Results of press-fit stems in revision knee arthroplasties. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009;467:810–817.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Modified Hybrid Stem Fixation in Revision TKA is Durable at 2 to 10 Years
Authors
Alexander P. Sah, MD
Sanjai Shukla, MD
Craig J. Della Valle, MD
Aaron G. Rosenberg, MD
Wayne G. Paprosky, MD
Publication date
01-03-2011
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® / Issue 3/2011
Print ISSN: 0009-921X
Electronic ISSN: 1528-1132
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-010-1569-0

Other articles of this Issue 3/2011

Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® 3/2011 Go to the issue

Clinical Research

Growth Diagrams for Individual Finger Strength in Children Measured with the RIHM

Symposium: Current Concepts in Cervical Spine Surgery

Cervical Spine Surgery: An Historical Perspective

Symposium: Nonaccidental Trauma in Children

Unexplained Fractures: Child Abuse or Bone Disease? A Systematic Review

Clinical Research

Comparison of Femoral Morphology and Bone Mineral Density between Femoral Neck Fractures and Trochanteric Fractures

Symposium: Nonaccidental Trauma in Children

Child Abuse and the Legal System: The Orthopaedic Surgeon’s Role in Diagnosis

Symposium: Nonaccidental Trauma in Children

The Radiographic Approach to Child Abuse