Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Original Article • KNEE - ARTHROPLASTY
  • Published:
European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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%.

Conclusion

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  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 89:780–785

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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:1076–1081

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  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):680–687

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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:723–728

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR). Hip, knee & shoulder arthroplasty: 2017 Annual Report. Adelaide: AOA, 2017: 198

  6. Kim YH, Kim JS (2009) Revision total knee arthroplasty with use if a constrained condylar knee prosthesis. JBJS Am 91-A(6):1440–1447

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Thienpont E (2016) Revision knee surgery techniques. EFORT Open Rev 1:233–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 32:2480–2483

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 32:1234–1240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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) 80:63–69

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 27:430–436

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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):218–224

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 34:220–233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Ewald FC (1989) The Knee Society total knee arthroplasty roentgenographic evaluation and scoring system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 248:9–12

    Google Scholar 

  15. Fu FH, Harner CD, Johnson DL, Miller MD, Woo SL (1993) Biomechanics of knee ligaments: basic concepts and clinical application. JBJS 75:1716–1727

    Article  Google 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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):689–694

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. National Joint Registry (2017) National Joint Registry for England, Wales and Northern Ireland; 11th annual report

  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):415–419

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Scuderi GR (2001) Revision total knee arthroplasty: how much constraint is enough? Clin Orthop Relat Res 392:300–305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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):324–330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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):172–178

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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):2638–2646

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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):1933–1939

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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):1578–1590

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Jacobs MA, Hungerford DS, Krackow KA, Lennox DW (1998) Revision total knee arthroplasty for aseptic failure. Clin Orthop Relat Res 226:78–85

    Google Scholar 

  27. Insall JN, Dethmers DA (1982) Revision of total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Rel Res. 170:123–130

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedics, The Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK

    Jarrad M. Stevens, Nicholas D. Clement, Deborah MacDonald & Richard Burnett

  2. Department of Orthopaedics, School of Clinical Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK

    David F. Hamilton

  3. Knox Orthopaedic Group, Knox Private Hospital, Melbourne, Australia

    Jarrad M. Stevens

Authors
  1. Jarrad M. Stevens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nicholas D. Clement
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Deborah MacDonald
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. David F. Hamilton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Richard Burnett
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Stevens, J.M., Clement, N.D., MacDonald, D. et al. Survival and functional outcome of revision total knee arthroplasty with a total stabilizer knee system: minimum 5 years of follow-up. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 29, 1511–1517 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-019-02449-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-019-02449-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation