Survival and functional outcome of revision total knee arthroplasty with a total stabilizer knee system: minimum 5 years of follow-up
- 111 Downloads
Revision knee arthroplasty surgery can range from patella resurfacing or polyethylene exchange, to staged revision and revision to a more constrained implant. Subsequently, the ability to elicit outcomes becomes difficult to obtain and hence information on functional outcome and survivorship for all modes of failure with a single revision system is valuable.
We retrospectively assessed 100 consecutive revision knee replacements that were converted from a primary knee replacement to a Triathlon total stabilizer (TS) knee system (Stryker Orthopaedics, Mahwah, NJ). Inclusion criteria included failure of a primary knee replacement of any cause converted to a Stryker TS knee system. Midterm outcome of at least 5 years was required. Implants survivorship, Oxford Knee Score (OKS), Forgotten Joint Score (FJS-12), Short Form (SF-) 12, reported patient satisfaction and radiographic analysis were recorded.
The all-cause survival rate at 5 years was 89.0% [95% confidence interval (CI) 87.3 to 90.7]. The all-cause survival rate was generally static after the first 4 years. The mean OKS was 27 (SD 11.9, range 0 to 46), FJS was 32.3 (SD 30.4, range 0 to 100), SF-12 physical component summary was 40.6 (SD 17.6, range 23.9 to 67.1), and mental component summary was 48.3 (SD 15.5, range 23.9 to 69.1). Reported patient satisfaction in patients who were not re-revised was 82%.
The midterm survivorship of cemented Stryker Triathlon TS knee revision for all-cause mode of failure is good to excellent; however, future follow-up is required to ensure this survivorship is observed into the long term. Despite limited functional outcome, overall patient satisfaction rates are high.
KeywordsKnee Revision Arthroplasty Total stabilizer Outcome
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
- 2.Patel A, Pavlou G, Mujica-Mota RE, Toms AD (2015) The epidemiology of revision total knee and hip arthroplasty in England and Wales. JBJS 97-B:1076–1081Google Scholar
- 5.Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR). Hip, knee & shoulder arthroplasty: 2017 Annual Report. Adelaide: AOA, 2017: 198Google Scholar
- 14.Ewald FC (1989) The Knee Society total knee arthroplasty roentgenographic evaluation and scoring system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 248:9–12Google Scholar
- 16.Sampson AJ, Hamilton DF, Loh B, MacPherson G, Burnett R (2018) Optimizing posterior condylar offset and joint line restoration in revision total knee arthroplasty using a contemporary implant system. Tech Orthop 1:1. https://doi.org/10.1097/bto.0000000000000314 (published ahead of print) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 18.National Joint Registry (2017) National Joint Registry for England, Wales and Northern Ireland; 11th annual reportGoogle Scholar
- 26.Jacobs MA, Hungerford DS, Krackow KA, Lennox DW (1998) Revision total knee arthroplasty for aseptic failure. Clin Orthop Relat Res 226:78–85Google Scholar
- 27.Insall JN, Dethmers DA (1982) Revision of total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Rel Res. 170:123–130Google Scholar