Acceptable mid- to long-term survival rates and functional outcomes following a single design rotating hinge total knee arthroplasty
This study first analyzes implant survival of this single design modular rotating hinge knee and identifies potential risk factors for failure and evaluates joint function using the postoperative WOMAC (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index) score, active flexion and extension deficit.
131 prostheses implanted for failure of prior total knee arthroplasty (n = 120) or complex primary procedures (n = 11) using a single modular implant (MUTARS—modular universal tumor and revision system GenuX, Implantcast, Buxtehude, Germany) between 2006 and 2014 including 73 patients treated for periprosthetic joint infection with a two-stage revision protocol were retrospectively identified. Implant survival was assessed using the Kaplan–Meier method; potential risk factors were identified using the log-rank test, as well as non-parametric analysis. Postoperative function was assessed using the WOMAC and measurement of range of motion.
After a median follow-up of 62 months, 37 implants required implant revision (28%). Five-year survival was 69.7% [95% CI (confidence interval) 60.9–78.5] with periprosthetic (re-) infection being the main cause for failure (15%), followed by aseptic loosening (9%). In cases of periprosthetic infection, infection-free survival was 83% at 5 years (95% CI 74–92) with twelve patients suffering reinfection (16%).While body mass index (p = 0.75), age (p = 0.16) or indication for rotating hinge knee arthroplasty (p = 0.25) had no influence on survival, Charlson comorbidity score (CCI) (p = 0.07) and number of previous revision surgeries (p = 0.05) correlated with implant failure. There was trend (p = 0.1) for improved survival in fully cemented implants. Mean postoperative WOMAC was 127(range 55–191), 11 patients (15%) had limited knee extension.
Rotating hinge total knee arthroplasty using a single modular implant shows acceptable survival rates and function compared to previous studies with (re-)infection being the most relevant mode of failure. Patients with a high CCI and multiple previous surgeries are at increased risk for failure.
Level of evidence
Retrospective cohort study, III.
KeywordsRevision knee arthroplasty TKA PJI Periprosthetic joint infection Total knee arthroplasty Rotating hinge knee
Body mass index
Charlson comorbidity index
Interquartile range 25–75%
Musculoskeletal infection society
Modular universal tumor and revision system
Periprosthetic joint infection
Rotating hinge knee
Total knee arthroplasty
Western Ontario and McMaster universities osteoarthritis index
CT review of literature, conception and design, acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data, statistical analysis, drafting of the manuscript; TSB review of literature, conception and design, acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data, statistical analysis, drafting of the manuscript; GG conception and design, critical revision of the manuscript; BT acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data, critical revision of the manuscript; BM critical revision of the manuscript; JR critical revision of the manuscript; DA critical revision of the manuscript; JS critical revision of the manuscript; RD conception and design, acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data, drafting of the manuscript, administrative, technical and material support, critical revision of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
A specific source of funding was not required in this study.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
One author has received travel expenses by Implantcast Gmbh, Buxtehude, Germany outside the submitted work.
Approval of the institutional review board was obtained prior to this investigation (local ethical committee ref. no. 2018-123-f-S).
- 4.Davies GM, Watson DJ, Bellamy N (1999) Comparison of the responsiveness and relative effect size of the western Ontario and McMaster universities osteoarthritis index and the short-form medical outcomes study survey in a randomized, clinical trial of osteoarthritis patients. Arthritis Care Res 12:172–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 7.Ewald FC (1989) The knee society total knee arthroplasty roentgenographic evaluation and scoring system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 248:9–12Google Scholar
- 19.Mantel N (1966) Evaluation of survival data and two new rank order statistics arising in its consideration. Cancer Chemother Rep Part 1 50:163–170Google Scholar
- 23.Petursson G, Fenstad AM, Havelin LI, Gothesen O, Lygre SH, Rohrl SM et al (2015) Better survival of hybrid total knee arthroplasty compared to cemented arthroplasty. Acta Orthop 86:714–720Google Scholar
- 24.Pour AE, Parvizi J, Slenker N, Purtill JJ, Sharkey PF (2007) Rotating hinged total knee replacement: use with caution. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89:1735–1741Google Scholar
- 25.Rohner E, Benad K, Zippelius T, Kloss N, Jacob B, Kirschberg J et al (2018) Good clinical and radiological results of total knee arthroplasty using varus valgus constrained or rotating hinge implants in ligamentous laxity. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-018-5307-6 Google Scholar
- 27.Smith TH, Gad BV, Klika AK, Styron JF, Joyce TA, Barsoum WK (2013) Comparison of mechanical and nonmechanical failure rates associated with rotating hinged total knee arthroplasty in nontumor patients. J Arthroplast 28(62–67):e61Google Scholar