Long-Term Results of Total Knee Arthroplasty with Contemporary Distal Femoral Replacement.
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Amputation, Surgical
/ statistics & numerical data
Arthritis, Infectious
/ surgery
Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee
/ methods
Female
Femoral Fractures
/ surgery
Femur
/ surgery
Follow-Up Studies
Humans
Knee Joint
/ surgery
Male
Middle Aged
Postoperative Complications
/ etiology
Proportional Hazards Models
Prosthesis Design
Reoperation
/ statistics & numerical data
Tibia
/ surgery
Journal
The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume
ISSN: 1535-1386
Titre abrégé: J Bone Joint Surg Am
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0014030
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 Jan 2020
02 Jan 2020
Historique:
pubmed:
10
10
2019
medline:
27
6
2020
entrez:
10
10
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Distal femoral replacement (DFR) is a salvage option for complex primary and revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Although excellent immediate fixation and weight-bearing are achieved, there is a paucity of data on long-term outcomes of TKA with DFR. The purpose of the present study was to determine implant survivorship, clinical outcomes, and radiographic results of TKAs with contemporary DFR components in a large series. We identified 144 consecutive TKAs performed with DFR for non-oncologic indications from 2000 to 2015 at a single academic institution. Indications for the index DFR included 66 (46%) for native (n = 11) or periprosthetic (n = 55) femoral fracture, 40 (28%) for staged treatment of periprosthetic joint infection, 28 (19%) for aseptic TKA loosening, and 10 (7%) for other indications. Porous metal cones were used to augment femoral fixation in 28 patients (19%) and tibial fixation in 38 patients (26%). Outcomes included cumulative incidence of revision and reoperation (utilizing a competing risk model), Knee Society scores, and radiographic results. The mean age at the time of index DFR was 72 years, and 65% of patients were female. The mean follow-up was 5 years (range, 2 to 13 years) for the 111 patients who did not undergo revision, had not died, and were not lost to follow-up. The 10-year cumulative incidences of revision for aseptic loosening, all-cause revision, and any reoperation were 17.0%, 27.5%, and 46.3%, respectively. There was an increased risk of reoperation in patients who underwent index DFR for aseptic TKA loosening (hazard ratio [HR], 2.30; p = 0.026) or periprosthetic joint infection (HR, 2.18; p = 0.022) compared with periprosthetic or native femoral fractures. However, there was no difference in risk of revision for aseptic loosening or all-cause revision based on the original operative indication. The mean Knee Society score increased from 45 preoperatively to 71 at the time of the latest follow-up (p < 0.001). Radiographic loosening was observed in 8 unrevised DFRs (7%). There were 7 above-the-knee amputations performed at the time of the final follow-up, all for intractable periprosthetic joint infection. TKAs with contemporary DFR had high 10-year cumulative incidences of both revision and reoperation, underscoring the salvage nature of this procedure as a final reconstructive option. Most patients experienced substantial clinical improvements with this end-stage revision procedure. Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Distal femoral replacement (DFR) is a salvage option for complex primary and revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Although excellent immediate fixation and weight-bearing are achieved, there is a paucity of data on long-term outcomes of TKA with DFR. The purpose of the present study was to determine implant survivorship, clinical outcomes, and radiographic results of TKAs with contemporary DFR components in a large series.
METHODS
METHODS
We identified 144 consecutive TKAs performed with DFR for non-oncologic indications from 2000 to 2015 at a single academic institution. Indications for the index DFR included 66 (46%) for native (n = 11) or periprosthetic (n = 55) femoral fracture, 40 (28%) for staged treatment of periprosthetic joint infection, 28 (19%) for aseptic TKA loosening, and 10 (7%) for other indications. Porous metal cones were used to augment femoral fixation in 28 patients (19%) and tibial fixation in 38 patients (26%). Outcomes included cumulative incidence of revision and reoperation (utilizing a competing risk model), Knee Society scores, and radiographic results. The mean age at the time of index DFR was 72 years, and 65% of patients were female. The mean follow-up was 5 years (range, 2 to 13 years) for the 111 patients who did not undergo revision, had not died, and were not lost to follow-up.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The 10-year cumulative incidences of revision for aseptic loosening, all-cause revision, and any reoperation were 17.0%, 27.5%, and 46.3%, respectively. There was an increased risk of reoperation in patients who underwent index DFR for aseptic TKA loosening (hazard ratio [HR], 2.30; p = 0.026) or periprosthetic joint infection (HR, 2.18; p = 0.022) compared with periprosthetic or native femoral fractures. However, there was no difference in risk of revision for aseptic loosening or all-cause revision based on the original operative indication. The mean Knee Society score increased from 45 preoperatively to 71 at the time of the latest follow-up (p < 0.001). Radiographic loosening was observed in 8 unrevised DFRs (7%). There were 7 above-the-knee amputations performed at the time of the final follow-up, all for intractable periprosthetic joint infection.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
TKAs with contemporary DFR had high 10-year cumulative incidences of both revision and reoperation, underscoring the salvage nature of this procedure as a final reconstructive option. Most patients experienced substantial clinical improvements with this end-stage revision procedure.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
METHODS
Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31596808
doi: 10.2106/JBJS.19.00489
pii: 00004623-202001020-00007
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
45-51Références
Myers GJ, Abudu AT, Carter SR, Tillman RM, Grimer RJ. Endoprosthetic replacement of the distal femur for bone tumours: long-term results. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007 Apr;89(4):521-6.
Schwab JH, Agarwal P, Boland PJ, Kennedy JG, Healey JH. Patellar complications following distal femoral replacement after bone tumor resection. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006 Oct;88(10):2225-30.
Hart GP, Kneisl JS, Springer BD, Patt JC, Karunakar MA. Open reduction vs distal femoral replacement arthroplasty for comminuted distal femur fractures in the patients 70 years and older. J Arthroplasty. 2017 Jan;32(1):202-6. Epub 2016 Jun 23.
Saidi K, Ben-Lulu O, Tsuji M, Safir O, Gross AE, Backstein D. Supracondylar periprosthetic fractures of the knee in the elderly patients: a comparison of treatment using allograft-implant composites, standard revision components, distal femoral replacement prosthesis. J Arthroplasty. 2014 Jan;29(1):110-4. Epub 2013 May 13.
Berend KR, Lombardi AV Jr. Distal femoral replacement in nontumor cases with severe bone loss and instability. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009 Feb;467(2):485-92. Epub 2008 Jun 4.
Bradish CF, Kemp HB, Scales JT, Wilson JN. Distal femoral replacement by custom-made prostheses. Clinical follow-up and survivorship analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1987 Mar;69(2):276-84.
Toepfer A, Harrasser N, Schwarz PR, Pohlig F, Lenze U, Mühlhofer HML, Gerdesmeyer L, von Eisenhart-Rothe R, Suren C. Distal femoral replacement with the MML system: a single center experience with an average follow-up of 86 months. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2017 May 22;18(1):206.
Kamath AF, Lewallen DG, Hanssen AD. Porous tantalum metaphyseal cones for severe tibial bone loss in revision knee arthroplasty: a five to nine-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2015 Feb 4;97(3):216-23.
Meneghini RM, Lewallen DG, Hanssen AD. Use of porous tantalum metaphyseal cones for severe tibial bone loss during revision total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008 Jan;90(1):78-84.
Meneghini RM, Lewallen DG, Hanssen AD. Use of porous tantalum metaphyseal cones for severe tibial bone loss during revision total knee replacement. Surgical technique. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009 Mar 1;91(Suppl 2 Pt 1):131-8.
Nikolaus OB, Abdel MP, Hanssen AD, Lewallen DG. Porous tantalum femoral metaphyseal cones for large femoral bone defects in revision total knee arthroplasty. JBJS Essent Surg Tech. 2017 Jun 14;7(2):e17.
Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD, Scott WN. Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989 Nov;248:13-4.
Ewald FC. The Knee Society total knee arthroplasty roentgenographic evaluation and scoring system. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989 Nov;248:9-12.
Mulhall KJ, Ghomrawi HM, Engh GA, Clark CR, Lotke P, Saleh KJ. Radiographic prediction of intraoperative bone loss in knee arthroplasty revision. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006 May;446:51-8.
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 Feb 15;99(4):324-30.