Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty: Complications and Results

  • Juan S. Ruiz-Pérez
  • Primitivo Gómez-Cardero
  • E. Carlos Rodríguez-Merchán


Revision total knee arthroplasty (RTKA) is growing exponentially due to changes in habits in the population and the increase in life expectancy. Identifying the cause of failure of the primary arthroplasty with the clinical exam and with radiological and serological tests is fundamental to achieving an acceptable result. The management of soft tissues, bone stock loss, correct alignment, and control of possible associated infection poses a challenge in the reconstruction of the joint. Comorbidities such as obesity and diabetes should be considered at the time of surgical planning as well as the possible occurrence of adverse effects. Currently, there is wide variability in designs on the orthopedic market with various degrees of constriction, as well as the possibility of metaphyseal supplements for managing difficulties (augments, cones, or sleeves). However, the rate of medical and surgical complications continues to be high, and the results are less predictable than in in the primary surgery. In this chapter, we address all these issues with the studies available in the recent and classic literature; noting the complexity of joint reconstruction, these specific surgeries should be performed at institutions that have the support of a multidisciplinary team to reduce complications and achieve better outcomes.


Revision total knee arthroplasty Complications Results 


  1. 1.
    Mistry JB, Elmallah RK, Chughtai M, Oktem M, Harwin SF, Mont MA. Long-term survivorship and clinical outcomes of a single radius total knee arthroplasty. Surg Technol Int. 2016;28:247–51.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, Mowat F, Halpern M. Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89:780–5.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hossain F, Patel S, Haddad FS. Midterm assessment of causes and results of revision total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468:1221–8.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kerkhoffs GM, Servien E, Dunn W, et al. The influence of obesity on the compli cation rate and outcome of total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis and systematic literature review. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012;94-A:1839–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hamilton DF, Howie CR, Burnett R, Simpson AH, Patton JT. Dealing with the predicted increase in demand for revision total knee arthroplasty: challenges, risks and opportunities. Bone Joint J. 2015;97-B:723–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Smith TH, Gad BV, Klika AK, Styron JF, Joyce TA, Barsoum WK. Comparison of mechanical and nonmechanical failure rates associated with rotating hinged total knee arthroplasty in nontumor patients. J Arthroplasty. 2013;28:1)10.1016.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Baier C, Lüring C, Schaumburger J, et al. Assessing patient-oriented results after revision total knee arthroplasty. J Orthop Sci. 2013;18(6):955–61. Scholar
  8. 8.
    Shen C, Lichstein PM, Austin MS, Sharkey PF, Parvizi J. Revision knee arthroplasty for bone loss: choosing the right degree of constraint. J Arthroplasty. 2014;29:127–13110.1016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Farid YR, Thakral R, Finn HA. Intermediate-term results of 142 single-design, rotating-hinge implants: frequent complications may not preclude salvage of severely affected knees. J Arthroplasty. 2015;30:2173–80. Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cottino U, Abdel MP, Perry KI, Mara KC, Lewallen DG, Hanssen AD. Long-term results after total knee arthroplasty with contemporary rotating-hinge prostheses. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2017;99:324–30.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rodríguez-Merchán EC, Gómez-Cardero P, Martínez-Lloreda A. Revision knee arthroplasty with a rotating-hinge design in elderly patients with instability following total knee arthroplasty. J Clin Orthop Trauma. 2015;6:19–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rodríguez-Merchán EC. Total knee arthroplasty using hinge joints: indications and results. EFORT Open Rev. 2019;4:121–32.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Carter J, Springer B, Curtin BM. Early complications of revision total knee arthroplasty in morbidly obese patients. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2019;29:1101. Scholar
  14. 14.
    Roth A, Khlopas A, George J, Churchill JL, Molloy R, Mont MA, Piuzzi NS, Higuera CA. The effect of body mass index on 30-day complications after revision total hip and knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2019;37:S242. pii: S0883-5403(19)30140-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Watts CD, Wagner ER, Houdek MT, Lewallen DG, Mabry TM. Morbid obesity: increased risk of failure after aseptic revision TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473:2621e7.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Namba RS, Cafri G, Khatod M, Inacio MC, Brox TW, Paxton EW. Risk factors for total knee arthroplasty aseptic revision. J Arthroplasty. 2013;28(8 Suppl):122–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gu A, Wei C, Robinson HN, Sobrio SA, Liu J, Sculco TP, Sculco PK. Postoperative complications and impact of diabetes mellitus severity on revision total knee arthroplasty. J Knee Surg. 2019;
  18. 18.
    Underwood P, Askari R, Hurwitz S, Chamarthi B, Garg R. Preoperative A1C and clinical outcomes in patients with diabetes undergoing major noncardiac surgical procedures. Diabetes Care. 2014;37(3):611–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gu A, Wei C, Bernstein SA, Nguyen NTT, Sobrio SA, Liu J, Sculco PK. The impact of gender on postoperative complications after revision total knee arthroplasty. J Knee Surg. 2019;
  20. 20.
    Vadiee I, Backstein DJ. The effectiveness of repeat two-stage revision for the treatment of recalcitrant total knee arthroplasty infection. J Arthroplasty. 2019;34:369–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rowan FE, Donaldson MJ, Pietrzak JR, Haddad FS. The role of one stage exchange for prosthetic joint infection. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2018;11:370–9.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ottesen CS, Troelsen A, Sandholdt H, Jacobsen S, Husted H, Gromov K. Acceptable success rate in patients with periprosthetic knee joint infection treated with debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention. J Arthroplasty. 2019;34:e365–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Encinas-Ullán CA, Rodríguez-Merchán EC. Arthroscopic treatment of total knee arthroplasty complications. EFORT Open Rev. 2019;4:33–43.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Vajapey SP, Blackwell RE, Maki AJ, Millet TL. Treatment of extensor tendon disruption after total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review. J Arthroplasty. 2019. pii: S0883-5403(19)30202-5.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Morrey MC, Barlow JD, Abdel MP, Hanssen AD. Synthetic mesh augmentation of acute and subacute quadriceps tendon repair. Orthopedics. 2016;39(1):e913.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Li B, Gao P, Qiu G, Li T. Locked plate versus retrograde intramedullary nail for periprosthetic femur fractures above total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis. Int Orthop. 2016;40:1689–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hardeman F, Londers J, Favril A, et al. Predisposing factors which are relevant for the clinical outcome after revision total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2012;20:1049–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rajgopal A, Panjwani TR, Rao A, Dahiya V. Are the outcomes of revision knee arthroplasty for flexion instability the same as for other major failure mechanisms? J Arthroplasty. 2017;32:3093–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Delanois RE, Mistry JB, Gwam CU, Mohamed NS, Choksi US, Mont MA. Current epidemiology of revision total knee arthroplasty in the United States. J Arthroplasty. 2017;32:2663–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Deehan DJ, Murray J, Birdsall PD, Holland JP, Pinder IM. The role of the rotating hinge prosthesis in the salvage arthroplasty setting. J Arthroplasty. 2008;23:683–8. Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lee DH, Lee SH, Song EK, Seon JK, Lim HA, Yang HY. Causes and clinical outcomes of revision total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Relat Res. 2017;29:104–9.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Han HS, Yu CH, Shin N, Won S, Lee MC. Femoral joint line restoration is a major determinant of postoperative range of motion in revision total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2019;27:2090. Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kim HJ, Lee OS, Lee SH, Lee YS. Comparative analysis between cone and sleeve in managing severe bone defect during revision total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Knee Surg. 2018;31:677–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wang C, Pfitzner T, von Roth P, Mayr HO, Sostheim M, Hube R. Fixation of stem in revision of total knee arthroplasty: cemented versus cementless-a meta-analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2016;24:3200–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Driesman AS, Macaulay W, Schwarzkopf R. Cemented versus cementless stems in revision total knee arthroplasty. J Knee Surg. 2019; Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kang SG, Park CH, Song SJ. Stem fixation in revision total knee arthroplasty: indications, stem dimensions, and fixation methods. Knee Surg Relat Res. 2018;30:187–92.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Juan S. Ruiz-Pérez
    • 1
  • Primitivo Gómez-Cardero
    • 1
  • E. Carlos Rodríguez-Merchán
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Orthopedic Surgery“La Paz” University HospitalMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations