A novel radiological index uses the inner canal diameter and the Citak classification index to predict risk factor for aseptic loosening following hinged total knee arthroplasty.
Aseptic loosening
Distal femur
Hinged total knee arthroplasty
Novel classification index
Radiological
Journal
Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery
ISSN: 1434-3916
Titre abrégé: Arch Orthop Trauma Surg
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9011043
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 Sep 2024
11 Sep 2024
Historique:
received:
17
03
2024
accepted:
03
09
2024
medline:
11
9
2024
pubmed:
11
9
2024
entrez:
11
9
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
It remains unclear if distal femoral morphology should be a key consideration when selecting the implant or fixation strategy. A novel radiological index has been proposed to classify patients' distal femoral morphology. This study aims to evaluate the validity of this classification system in a cohort of patients undergoing hinged Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA), and to determine if distal femoral morphology is a risk factor for aseptic loosening or all cause revision following hinged TKA. This study was a retrospective analysis of our institutional database. Fifty-nine patients having undergone hinged TKA with adequate radiographs for examination were eligible for inclusion. Radiographic measurements were performed using the Citak radiological index criteria. The proportion of aseptic loosening and all-cause revisions were compared between the different classification groups. The analysis included 41 females (69.5%) and 18 males (30.5%). The mean age of the participants was 71.2 years (SD = 12.6). For inner canal diameter patients were classified as: Type A (31/59, 53%), Type B (19/59, 32%), and Type C (9/59, 15%). For the Index Classification Group, patients were classified as: Group A (26/59, 44%), Group B (20/59, 34%), and Group C (13/59, 22%). There was no significant difference in overall revision rate between the three groups (χ Distal femoral morphology plays an important role in the risk of aseptic loosening following hinged knee replacement, and should be considered when deciding implant type and fixation in these patients.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39259311
doi: 10.1007/s00402-024-05538-5
pii: 10.1007/s00402-024-05538-5
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.
Références
Shichman I, Roof M, Askew N, Nherera L, Rozell JC, Seyler TM, Schwarzkopf R (2023) Projections and Epidemiology of Primary Hip and Knee Arthroplasty in Medicare Patients to 2040–2060. JBJS Open Access, 8(1), Article e22.00112. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.OA.22.00112
Schwartz AM, Farley KX, Guild GN, Bradbury TL (2020) Projections and epidemiology of revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States to 2030. J Arthroplasty 35(6S):S79–S85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2020.02.030
doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2020.02.030
pubmed: 32151524
pmcid: 7239745
Pitta M, Esposito CI, Li Z, Lee Yyu, Wright TM, Padgett DE (2018) Failure after modern total knee arthroplasty: a prospective study of 18,065 knees. J Arthroplasty 33(2):407–414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2017.09.041
doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2017.09.041
pubmed: 29079167
Thiele K, Perka C, Matziolis G, Mayr HO, Sostheim M, Hube R (2015) Current failure mechanisms after knee arthroplasty have changed: polyethylene wear is less common in revision surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am 97(9):715–720. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.M.01534
doi: 10.2106/JBJS.M.01534
pubmed: 25948517
Bozic KJ, Kurtz SM, Lau E et al (2010) The epidemiology of revision total knee arthroplasty in the United States. Clin Orthop Relat Res 468(1):45–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-009-0945-0
doi: 10.1007/s11999-009-0945-0
pubmed: 19554385
Canadian Institute for Health Information (2023) Hip and Knee Replacements in Canada: CJRR Annual Report, 2021–2022. Ottawa, ON
Shichman I, Askew N, Habibi A, Nherera L, Macaulay W, Seyler T, Schwarzkopf R (2023) Projections and epidemiology of revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States to 2040–2060. Arthroplast Today 21:101152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artd.2023.101152
doi: 10.1016/j.artd.2023.101152
pubmed: 37293373
pmcid: 10244911
Fehring TK, Odum S, Griffin WL, Mason JB, Nadaud M (2001) Early failures in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 392315–318. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003086-200111000-00041
Citak M, Levent A, Suero EM, Rademacher K, Busch SM, Gehrke T (2022) A novel radiological classification system of the distal femur. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 142(2):315–322. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-021-03828-w
doi: 10.1007/s00402-021-03828-w
pubmed: 33638676
von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M (2007) The strengthening the reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Lancet J Clin Epidemiol 61(4):344–349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.11.008
doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.11.008
Scholz T, Akkaya M, Linke P, Busch SM, Gehrke T, Salber J, Citak M (2023) The anatomical shape of the distal femur is an independent risk factor for aseptic loosening following one-stage septic knee revision using rotating hinge knee prosthesis. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 143(1):481–488. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-021-04327-8
doi: 10.1007/s00402-021-04327-8
pubmed: 34978606
Levent A, Suero EM, Gehrke T, Bakhtiari IG, Citak M (2021) Risk factors for aseptic loosening in complex revision total knee arthroplasty using rotating hinge implants. Int Orthop 45(1):125–132. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-020-04878-2
doi: 10.1007/s00264-020-04878-2
pubmed: 33188603
Tandon T, Tadros BJ, Avasthi A, Hill R, Rao M (2020) Management of periprosthetic distal femur fractures using distal femoral arthroplasty and fixation - comparative study of outcomes and costs. J Clin Orthop Trauma 11(1):160–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcot.2019.05.015
doi: 10.1016/j.jcot.2019.05.015
pubmed: 32002006
Rubinger L, Khalik HA, Gazendam A et al (2021) Very distal femoral periprosthetic fractures: replacement versus fixation: a systematic review. J Orthop Trauma 35(11):573–583. https://doi.org/10.1097/BOT.0000000000002080
doi: 10.1097/BOT.0000000000002080
pubmed: 33993176
Schultz BJ, Debaun MR, Huddleston JI 3rd (2019) The Use of stems for morbid obesity in total knee arthroplasty. J Knee Surg 32(7):607–610
doi: 10.1055/s-0039-1681078
pubmed: 30861541
Hamai S, Miyahara H, Esaki Y et al (2015) Mid-term clinical results of primary total knee arthroplasty using metal block augmentation and stem extension in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 16:225. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-015-0689-9
doi: 10.1186/s12891-015-0689-9
pubmed: 26307109
pmcid: 4549870
Christ AB, Hornicek FJ, Fabbri N (2021) Distal femoral replacement – cemented or cementless? Current concepts and review of the literature. J Clin Orthop Trauma. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcot.2021.04.032
doi: 10.1016/j.jcot.2021.04.032
pubmed: 34040980
pmcid: 8138588
Liang H, Guo W, Yang R, Tang X, Yan T (2018) Comparison between uncemented and cemented fixation for the tibial component in distal femoral replacement: a clinical and radiological study. Int Orthop 42(9):2249–2261. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-018-3847-5
doi: 10.1007/s00264-018-3847-5
pubmed: 29478210