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

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy
Published in: Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy 4/2019

01-04-2019 | KNEE

Revision knee complexity classification—RKCC: a common-sense guide for surgeons to support regional clinical networking in revision knee surgery

Authors: J. R. A. Phillips, L. Al-Mouazzen, R. Morgan-Jones, J. R. Murray, A. J. Porteous, A. D. Toms

Published in: Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy | Issue 4/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

There is considerable variation in practice throughout Europe in both the services provided and in the outcomes of Revision Knee Surgery. In the UK, a recent report published called get it right first time (GIRFT) aims to improve patient outcomes through providing high quality, cost-effective care, and reducing complications. This has led to the development of a classification system that attempts to classify the complexity of revision knee surgery, aiming to encourage and support regional clinical networking.

Methods

The revision knee classification system (RKCC) incorporates not only complexity, but also patient factors, the presence of infection, the integrity of the extensor mechanism, and the soft tissues. It then provides guidance for clinical network discussion. Reliability and reproducibility testing have been performed to establish the inter- and intra-observer variabilities using this classification.

Results

Good correlation between first attempt non-expert and experts, good intra-observer variability of non-expert, and an excellent correlation between second attempt non-expert and experts has been achieved. This supports the use of RKCC by both inexperienced and experienced surgeons.

Conclusions

The revision knee complexity classification has been proposed that offers a common-sense approach to recognize the increasing complexity in revision TKR cases. It provides a methodological assessment of revision knee cases and support regional clinical networking and triage of appropriate cases to revision units or specialist centres.

Level of Evidence

Expert opinion, Level V.
Literature
1.
Abdel MP, Salib C, Mara K, Pagnano M, Perry K, Hanssen A (2018) Extensor mechanism reconstruction with use of marlex mesh: a series study of 77 total knee arthroplasties. J Bone Joint Surg Am 100(15):1309–1318CrossRefPubMed
2.
Bonnin M, Lustig S, Huten D (2016) Extensor tendon ruptures after total knee arthroplasty. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 102(1 Suppl):S21–S31CrossRefPubMed
3.
Briggs T (2012) Getting it right first time: improving the quality of orthopaedic care within the National Health Service in England. British Orthopaedic Association
4.
Briggs T (2015) A national review of adult elective orthopaedic services in England. Getting it right first time. British Orthopaedic Association
5.
Cetrulo CL, Shiba T, Friel MT, Davis B, Buntic RF, Buncke GM, Brooks D (2008) Management of exposed total knee prostheses with microvascular tissue transfer. Microsurgery 28(8):617–622CrossRefPubMed
6.
Dalury DF, Pomeroy DL, Gorab RS, Adams MJ (2013) Why are total knee arthroplasties being revised? J Arthroplasty 28(8 Suppl):120–121CrossRefPubMed
7.
Engh GA, Ammeen DJ (1999) Bone loss with revision total knee arthroplasty: defect classification and alternatives for reconstruction. Instr Course Lect 48:167–175PubMed
8.
Frehill B, Crocombe A, Cirovic S, Agarwal Y, Bradley N (2010) Initial stability of type-2 tibial defect treatments. Proc Inst Mech Eng H 224(1):77–85CrossRefPubMed
9.
Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, Mowat F, Halpern M (2007) Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89(4):780–785PubMed
10.
Kurtz S, Ong KL, Schmier J, Mowat F, Saleh K, Dybvik E, Kärrholm J, Garellick G, Havelin L, Furnes O, Malchau H, Lau E (2007) Future clinical and economic impact of revision total hip and knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89(Suppl 3):144–151PubMed
11.
Lan YT, Jiang JK, Chang SC, Yang SH, Lin CC, Lin HH, Wang HS, Chen WS, Lin TC, Lin JK (2016) Improved outcomes of colorectal cancer patients with liver metastases in the era of the multidisciplinary teams. Int J Colorectal Dis 31(2):403–411CrossRefPubMed
12.
Liddle AD, Pandit H, Judge A, Murray DW (2016) Effect of surgical caseload on revision rate following total and unicompartmental knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 98(1):1–8CrossRefPubMed
13.
Lim CT, Amanatullah DF, Huddleston JI, Harris AH, Hwang KL, Maloney WJ, Goodman SB (2017) Reconstruction of disrupted extensor mechanism after total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 32(10):3134–3140CrossRefPubMed
14.
Marlow NE, Barraclough B, Collier NA, Dickinson IC, Fawcett J, Graham J, Maddern GJ (2010) Centralization and the relationship between volume and outcome in knee arthroplasty procedures. ANZ J Surg 80(4):234–241CrossRefPubMed
15.
McPherson EJ, Tontz W, Patzakis M, Woodsome C, Holtom P, Norris L, Shufelt C (1999) Outcome of infected total knee utilizing a staging system for prosthetic joint infection. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ) 28(3):161–165
16.
McPherson EJ, Woodson C, Holtom P, Roidis N, Shufelt C, Patzakis M (2002) Periprosthetic total hip infection: outcomes using a staging system. Clin Orthop Relat Res (403):8–15
17.
Metcalfe D, Perry DC, Bouamra O, Salim A, Woodford M, Edwards A, Lecky FE, Costa M (2016) Regionalisation of trauma care in England. Bone Joint J 98-B(9):1253–1261CrossRefPubMed
18.
Morgan-Jones R (2013) Infected knee replacement symposium, City Hall, Cardiff. 12–14 March 2013
19.
Munro A, Brown M, Niblock P, Steele R, Carey F (2015) Do Multidisciplinary Team (MDT) processes influence survival in patients with colorectal cancer? A population-based experience. BMC Cancer 15:686CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
20.
21.
Oduwole K, Molony DC, Walls R, Bashir S, Mulhall KJ (2010) Increasing financial burden of revision total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 18(7):945–948CrossRefPubMed
22.
Pamilo K, Peltola M, Paloneva J, Mäkelä K, Häkkinen U, Remes V (2015) Hospital volume affects outcome after total knee arthroplasty. Acta Orthop 86(1):41–47CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
23.
Panegrossi G, Ceretti M, Papalia M, Casella F, Favetti F, Falez F (2014) Bone loss management in total knee revision surgery. Int Orthop 38(2):419–427CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
24.
Patel A, Pavlou G, Mújica-Mota R, Toms AD (2015) The epidemiology of revision total knee and hip arthroplasty in England and Wales: a comparative analysis with projections for the United States. A study using the National Joint Registry dataset. Bone Joint J 97-B(8):1076–1081CrossRefPubMed
25.
Petretta R, Phillips JR, Toms AD (2017) Management of acute periprosthetic joint infection of the knee - Algorithms for the on call surgeon. Surgeon 15(2):83–92CrossRefPubMed
26.
Podmore B, Hutchings A, van der Meulen J, Aggarwal A, Konan S (2018) Impact of comorbid conditions on outcomes of hip and knee replacement surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open 8(7):e021784CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
27.
Stephens MR, Lewis WG, Brewster AE et al (2006) Multidisciplinary team management is associated with improved outcomes after surgery for esophageal cancer. Dis Esophagus 19(3):164–171CrossRefPubMed
28.
Stone E, Rankin N, Kerr S, Fong K et al (2018) Does presentation at multidisciplinary team meetings improve lung cancer survival? Findings from a consecutive cohort study. Lung Cancer 124:199–204CrossRefPubMed
29.
30.
Young KS, Chummun S, Wright T, Darley E, Chapman TW, Porteous AJ, Murray JR, Khan U (2016) Management of the exposed total knee prosthesis, a six-year review. Knee 23(4):736–739CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Revision knee complexity classification—RKCC: a common-sense guide for surgeons to support regional clinical networking in revision knee surgery
Authors
J. R. A. Phillips
L. Al-Mouazzen
R. Morgan-Jones
J. R. Murray
A. J. Porteous
A. D. Toms
Publication date
01-04-2019
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy / Issue 4/2019
Print ISSN: 0942-2056
Electronic ISSN: 1433-7347
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-019-05462-x

Other articles of this Issue 4/2019

Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy 4/2019 Go to the issue

Knee

Robotic-arm assisted total knee arthroplasty has a learning curve of seven cases for integration into the surgical workflow but no learning curve effect for accuracy of implant positioning

KNEE

Asymmetric polyethylene inserts promote favorable kinematics and better clinical outcome compared to symmetric inserts in a mobile bearing total knee arthroplasty

KNEE

Hybrid closed wedge high tibial osteotomy improves patellofemoral joint congruity compared with open wedge high tibial osteotomy

KNEE

Large opening gaps, unstable hinge fractures, and osteotomy line below the safe zone cause delayed bone healing after open-wedge high tibial osteotomy

KNEE

Promising early outcomes of a novel anatomic knee system

KNEE

Patient-specific instrumentation improved axial alignment of the femoral component, operative time and perioperative blood loss after total knee arthroplasty