Skip to main content
Top
Published in: European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology 4/2015

01-05-2015 | Editorial

Revision total knee arthroplasty: the end of the allograft era?

Authors: Sébastien Parratte, Matthew P. Abdel, Alexandre Lunebourg, Nicolaas Budhiparama, David G. Lewallen, Arlen D. Hanssen, Jean-Noël Argenson

Published in: European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology | Issue 4/2015

Login to get access

Excerpt

Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is highly successful, with an exponential increase expected in the near future [1, 2]. More importantly, a fivefold increase in the number of revision TKAs is expected by 2030 [1, 2]. In the latest studies, the top seven reasons for revision TKA include aseptic loosening (23.1 %), infection (18.4 %), polyethylene wear (18.1 %), instability (17.7 %), pain/stiffness (9.3 %), osteolysis (4.5 %), and malposition/misalignment (2.9 %) [1, 3]. With modern implants, constraint can be effectively managed [4]. However, one of the remaining challenges in revision TKA is the management of severe bone loss [4]. Traditionally, allografts have been widely utilized to manage bone loss, with a significant failure rate at only mid-term follow-up [4]. New techniques with restoration of the metaphysis have been developed to optimize the results of revision TKA [48]. In this editorial, it was our aim to present contemporary management solutions for severe bone loss encountered at the time of revision TKA. …
Literature
1.
go back to reference Dalury DF, Pomeroy DL, Gorab RS, Adams MJ (2013) Why are total knee arthroplasties being revised. J Arthroplasty 28(8 Suppl.):120–121CrossRefPubMed Dalury DF, Pomeroy DL, Gorab RS, Adams MJ (2013) Why are total knee arthroplasties being revised. J Arthroplasty 28(8 Suppl.):120–121CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Bhandari M, Smith J, Miller LE, Block JE (2012) Clinical and economic burden of revision knee arthroplasty. Clin Med Insights Arthritis Musculoskelet Disord 5:89–94PubMedCentralPubMed Bhandari M, Smith J, Miller LE, Block JE (2012) Clinical and economic burden of revision knee arthroplasty. Clin Med Insights Arthritis Musculoskelet Disord 5:89–94PubMedCentralPubMed
3.
go back to reference Pfefferle KJ, Gil KM, Fening SD, Dilisio MF (2014) Validation study of a pooled electronic healthcare database: the effect of obesity on the revision rate of total knee arthroplasty. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 24(8):1625–1628CrossRefPubMed Pfefferle KJ, Gil KM, Fening SD, Dilisio MF (2014) Validation study of a pooled electronic healthcare database: the effect of obesity on the revision rate of total knee arthroplasty. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 24(8):1625–1628CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Huten D (2013) Femorotibial bone loss during revision total knee arthroplasty. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 99(1 Suppl.):22–33CrossRef Huten D (2013) Femorotibial bone loss during revision total knee arthroplasty. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 99(1 Suppl.):22–33CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Long WJ, Scuderi GR (2009) Porous tantalum cones for large metaphyseal tibial defects in revision total knee arthroplasty: a minimum 2-year follow-up. J Arthroplasty 24(7):1086–1092CrossRefPubMed Long WJ, Scuderi GR (2009) Porous tantalum cones for large metaphyseal tibial defects in revision total knee arthroplasty: a minimum 2-year follow-up. J Arthroplasty 24(7):1086–1092CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Meneghini RM, Lewallen DG, Hanssen AD (2008) Use of porous tantalum metaphyseal cones for severe tibial bone loss during revision total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 90(1):78–84CrossRefPubMed Meneghini RM, Lewallen DG, Hanssen AD (2008) Use of porous tantalum metaphyseal cones for severe tibial bone loss during revision total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 90(1):78–84CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Jensen CL, Petersen MM, Schrøder HM, Flivik G, Lund B (2012) Revision total knee arthroplasty with the use of trabecular metal cones: a randomized radiostereometric analysis with 2 years of follow-up. J Arthroplasty 27(10):1820–1826CrossRefPubMed Jensen CL, Petersen MM, Schrøder HM, Flivik G, Lund B (2012) Revision total knee arthroplasty with the use of trabecular metal cones: a randomized radiostereometric analysis with 2 years of follow-up. J Arthroplasty 27(10):1820–1826CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Kamath AF, Lewallen DG, Hanssen AD (2015) Porous tantalum metaphyseal cones for severe tibial bone loss in revision knee arthroplasty: a five to nine-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 97(3):216–223CrossRefPubMed Kamath AF, Lewallen DG, Hanssen AD (2015) Porous tantalum metaphyseal cones for severe tibial bone loss in revision knee arthroplasty: a five to nine-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 97(3):216–223CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Revision total knee arthroplasty: the end of the allograft era?
Authors
Sébastien Parratte
Matthew P. Abdel
Alexandre Lunebourg
Nicolaas Budhiparama
David G. Lewallen
Arlen D. Hanssen
Jean-Noël Argenson
Publication date
01-05-2015
Publisher
Springer Paris
Published in
European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology / Issue 4/2015
Print ISSN: 1633-8065
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1068
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-015-1615-4

Other articles of this Issue 4/2015

European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology 4/2015 Go to the issue