Survival and functional outcome of revision total knee arthroplasty with a total stabilizer knee system: minimum 5 years of follow-up

  • Jarrad M. Stevens
  • Nicholas D. Clement
  • Deborah MacDonald
  • David F. Hamilton
  • Richard Burnett
Original Article • KNEE - ARTHROPLASTY



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.


Knee Revision Arthroplasty Total stabilizer Outcome 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.


  1. 1.
    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. JBJS Am 89:780–785PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 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
  3. 3.
    Guerrero-Luduena RE, Comas M, Espallargues M et al (2016) Predicting the burden of revision knee arthroplasty: simulation of a 20-year horizon. Value Health 19(5):680–687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hamilton DF, Howie CR, Burnett R, Simpson AHRW, Patton JT (2015) Dealing with the predicted increase in demand for revision total knee arthroplasty challenges, risks and opportunities. Bone Joint J 97-B:723–728CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR). Hip, knee & shoulder arthroplasty: 2017 Annual Report. Adelaide: AOA, 2017: 198Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kim YH, Kim JS (2009) Revision total knee arthroplasty with use if a constrained condylar knee prosthesis. JBJS Am 91-A(6):1440–1447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Thienpont E (2016) Revision knee surgery techniques. EFORT Open Rev 1:233–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gwam CU, Chughtai M, Khlopas A et al (2017) Short-to-midterm outcomes of revision total knee arthroplasty patients with a total stabilizer knee system. J Arthroplasty 32:2480–2483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hamilton DF, Simpson PM, Patton JT, Howie CR, Burnett R (2017) Aseptic revision knee arthroplasty with total stabilizer prosthesis achieves similar functional outcomes to primary total knee arthroplasty at 2 years: a longitudinal cohort study. J Arthroplasty 32:1234–1240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Murray D, Carr A (1998) Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 80:63–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Behrend H, Giesinger K, Giesinger JM, Kuster MS (2012) The “forgotten joint” as the ultimate goal in joint arthroplasty: validation of a new patient-reported outcome measure. J Arthroplasty 27:430–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hamilton DF, Loth FL, Giesinger JM, Giesinger K, MacDonald DJ et al (2017) Validation of the English language Forgotten Joint Score-12 as an outcome measure for total hip and knee arthroplasty in a British population. Bone Joint J 99-B(2):218–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ware J Jr, Kosinski M, Keller SD (1996) A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care 34:220–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ewald FC (1989) The Knee Society total knee arthroplasty roentgenographic evaluation and scoring system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 248:9–12Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fu FH, Harner CD, Johnson DL, Miller MD, Woo SL (1993) Biomechanics of knee ligaments: basic concepts and clinical application. JBJS 75:1716–1727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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. (published ahead of print) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Clement ND, Macdonald D, Burnett R (2013) Predicting patient satisfaction using the Oxford knee score: where do we draw the line? Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 133(5):689–694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    National Joint Registry (2017) National Joint Registry for England, Wales and Northern Ireland; 11th annual reportGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Meijer MF, Reininga IHF, Boerboom AL, Stevens M, Bulstra SK (2013) Poorer survival after primary implant during revision total knee arthroplasty. Int Orthop 37(3):415–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Scuderi GR (2001) Revision total knee arthroplasty: how much constraint is enough? Clin Orthop Relat Res 392:300–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cottino U, Abdel MP, Perry KI, Mara KC, Lewallen DG, Hanssen AD (2017) Long-term results after total knee arthroplasty with contemporary rotating-hinge prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 99(4):324–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Clement ND, MacDonald DJ, Hamilton DF, Burnett R (2017) Posterior condylar offset is an independent predictor of functional outcome after revision total knee arthroplasty. Bone Joint Res 6(3):172–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Clement ND, Burnett R (2013) Patient satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty is affected by their general physical well-being. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 21(11):2638–2646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Clement ND, MacDonald D, Simpson AHRW (2014) The minimal clinically important difference in the Oxford knee score and Short Form 12 score after total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 22(8):1933–1939CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Clement N, MacDonald D, Patton JT, Burnett R (2015) Post-operative Oxford knee score can be used to indicate whether patient expectations have been achieved after primary total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 23(6):1578–1590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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. 27.
    Insall JN, Dethmers DA (1982) Revision of total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Rel Res. 170:123–130Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag France SAS, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of OrthopaedicsThe Royal Infirmary of EdinburghEdinburghScotland, UK
  2. 2.Department of Orthopaedics, School of Clinical SciencesUniversity of EdinburghEdinburghScotland, UK
  3. 3.Knox Orthopaedic Group, Knox Private HospitalMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations