Sagittal profile has a significant impact on the explantability of well-fixed cemented stems in revision knee arthroplasty: a biomechanical comparison study of five established knee implant models
- 38 Downloads
Easy revisability is gaining increasingly in importance. The removal of well-fixed cemented stems is very demanding and is often associated with increased operative morbidity. Implant design may be here a decisive impact factor, and the best way to ascertain it is experimentally. Aim of this study is to assess different cemented stems of established knee revision implants in regard to their removal capability.
Based on their sagittal profile, five stem extensions from known manufacturers were divided in conical, conical–cylindrical and cylindrical designs. The pedicles were also characterized in respect to their cross section, diameter and surface roughness. The cemented stems were dismounted six times each in a reproducible biomechanical setup. The explantation energy required was determined and statistical analyzed.
The conical shaft needed significantly the slightest explantation energy with 19.2 joules (p = 0.004). There was a strong negative linear correlation between conicity proportion and explantation energy of the cemented stems (R2 = 0.983). The removal of the three purely cylindrical shafts—regardless of their differences in diameter, cross-sectional design and surface– was the most demanding (98.3, 105, and 116.7 joules) with only secondary differences between them.
The longitudinal stem profile may have a primary impact on the explantability of well-fixed cemented shafts with conical designs showing superiority. Cross-sectional profile and surface roughness had here a less decisive influence on the explantability. Surgeons can choose proper implants and removal techniques depending on potential implant-associated revision risks and re-revisions to be expected.
KeywordsTotal knee arthroplasty Revision Explantation Implant removal Cemented stems Stem design Conical stems Stem conicity Complications
The authors have no acknowledgements to express.
There is no funding source.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
- 2.Boy O, Hahn S, Kociemba E, BQS-Fachgruppe Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie (2009) BQS Bundesgeschäftsstelle für Qualitätssicherung. Qualitätsreport 2008. Knie-Endoprothesenwechsel und -komponentenwechselGoogle Scholar
- 3.Boy O, Hahn S, Kociemba E, BQS-Fachgruppe Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie (2009) BQS Bundesgeschäftsstelle für Qualitätssicherung. Qualitätsreport 2008. Knie-Totalendoprothesen- ErstimplantationGoogle Scholar
- 4.Grimberg A, Jansson V, Liebs T et al (2015) Endoprothesenregister Deutschland (EPRD). Jahresbericht 2015. BerlinGoogle Scholar
- 8.Cherian JJ, Bhave A, Harwin SF, Mont MA (2016) Outcomes and aseptic survivorship of revision total knee arthroplasty. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ) 45:79–85Google Scholar
- 10.Elia EA, Lotke PA (1991) Results of revision total knee arthroplasty associated with significant bone loss. Clin Orthop Relat Res 271:114–121Google Scholar
- 16.Boddapati V, Fu MC, Mayman DJ et al (2017) Revision total knee arthroplasty for periprosthetic joint infection is associated with increased postoperative morbidity and mortality relative to noninfectious revisions. J Arthroplasty 33:521–526. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2017.09.021 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 18.Bryan RS, Rand JA (1982) Revision total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 170:116–122Google Scholar
- 20.Rand JA, Bryan RS (1982) Revision after total knee arthroplasty. Orthop Clin North Am 13:201–212Google Scholar
- 21.Yu S, Bolz N, Buza J et al (2017) Re-revision total knee arthroplasty: epidemiology and factors associated with outcomes. Orthop Proc 99–B:117–117Google Scholar
- 29.Fehring TK, Odum S, Olekson C et al (2003) Stem fixation in revision total knee arthroplasty: a comparative analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 416:217–224. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.blo.0000093032.56370.4b CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 31.Murray PB, Rand JA, Hanssen AD (1994) Cemented long-stem revision total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 309:116–123Google Scholar
- 33.Vince KG, Long W (1995) Revision knee arthroplasty. The limits of press fit medullary fixation. Clin Orthop Relat Res 317:172–177Google Scholar
- 37.Mow C, Wiedel J (1994) Noncemented revision total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 309:110–115Google Scholar
- 39.Whiteside LA (2006) Cementless fixation in revision total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 446:140–148. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.blo.0000218724.29344.89 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 45.Heinlein B, Kutzner I, Graichen F et al (2009) ESB clinical biomechanics award 2008: complete data of total knee replacement loading for level walking and stair climbing measured in vivo with a follow-up of 6–10 months. Clin Biomech 24:315–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2009.01.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 46.Mason JB, Fehring TK (2006) Removing well-fixed total knee arthroplasty implants. Clin Orthop Relat Res 446:76–82. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.blo.0000214413.06464.ce CrossRefGoogle Scholar