Improved clinical outcomes after revision arthroplasty with a hinged implant for severely stiff total knee arthroplasty

Rotating Hinge Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty Provides Greater Arc of Motion Gains for Patients Who Have Severe Arthrofibrosis

BACKGROUND

Arthrofibrosis is a common postoperative total knee arthroplasty (TKA) complication that results in limited range of motion (ROM). There is limited literature on outcomes after revision TKA (rTKA) for arthrofibrosis based on preoperative ROM restriction. The aims of this study were to: (1) examine ROM trajectory after rTKA for arthrofibrosis patients who have severe versus nonsevere limitations; (2) compare ROM gains and final arc of motion (AOM) between severe and nonsevere cohorts; (2a) compare ROM gain in a severe cohort treated with a rotating hinge (RH) versus a non-RH (NRH) construct; and (3) assess the impact of arthrofibrosis severity on patient-reported outcome measures.

METHODS

Patients were divided into 2 groups: group A had preoperative ROM < 70° (severe), and group B had preoperative ROM > 70° (non-severe). Patients were assessed clinically using AOM gain, absolute ROM, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcomes Score for Joint Replacement, lower extremity activity scale, and pain scores. Postoperative gains in AOM were compared between both groups.

RESULTS

A total of 56 rTKAs (group A (severe): n = 36, group B (non-severe): n = 20) were performed for patients who have postoperative fibrosis. Group B had better ROM at the 1-year time point (group B: 95.9 ± 22.5 degrees versus group A: 83.2 ± 25.7 degrees). Group A had significantly better improvement in absolute AOM than group B (31.1 ± 20.9 versus 11.4 ± 25.0 degrees, P < 0.01). The RH group demonstrated significantly better absolute AOM gain than the NRH group (41.3 ± 19.4 versus 18.3 ± 15.2 degrees, P < 0.001). However, there were no significant differences in patient-reported outcome measures between groups A and B or between RH and NRH groups at the final follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Final ROM achieved between severe and nonsevere arthrofibrosis groups was similar, and patients who have severe arthrofibrosis can expect greater absolute ROM gains and similar functional outcomes than nonsevere arthrofibrosis patients. The RH rTKAs provided greater AOM gains for patients who have severe arthrofibrosis, with equivalent functional outcomes to non-RH implants. For severe arthrofibrosis patients, RH designs provided twice the overall ROM gain; however, longer follow-up is necessary to determine whether RH designs have inferior overall implant survivorship.

Condylar constrained and rotating hinged implants in revision knee arthroplasty show similar survivorship and clinical outcome: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

In revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) ligament instability and bone defects might require more constraint implants such as a condylar constrained knee (CCK) or rotating hinged knee (RHK). When both implants are suitable, the choice remains controversial. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the survivorship and clinical outcome between CCK and RHK in revision TKA.

METHODS

Systematic literature research was performed. Studies analysing the clinical outcome and/or survivorship of CCK and/or RHK in revision TKA were included. Clinical outcomes included the Knee Society Score, both clinical (KSCS) and functional (KSFS), range of motion (ROM) and reoperations. Survival was defined as the time free from removal or revision of the femoral and/or tibial component.

RESULTS

A total of 40 articles analysing 4.555 knees were included. Survival did not differ between RHK and CCK implants (p = 0.6058), with, respectively, 91.6% and 89.8% survival after 5 years. Postoperative KSCS and KSFS were, respectively, 79.2 (SD 10.7) and 61.1 (SD 21.8) for the CCK group. Similar scores were noted for the RHK group with a KSCS of 80.2 (SD 14.1) and KSFS of 58.5 (SD 17.3). Postoperative ROM was similar for CCK (105.3°, SD 17.1°) and RHK patients (104.1°, SD 16.9°).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis revealed that both survivorship and clinical outcome are similar for CCK and RHK patients for whom both designs are technically suitable and indicated.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Revision total knee arthroplasty for arthrofibrosis improves range of motion

PURPOSE

Arthrofibrosis after primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a significant contributor to patient dissatisfaction. While treatment algorithms involve early physical therapy and manipulation under anaesthesia (MUA), some patients ultimately require revision TKA. It is unclear whether revision TKA can consistently improve these patient's range of motion (ROM). The purpose of this study was to evaluate ROM when revision TKA was performed for arthrofibrosis.

METHODS

A retrospective study of 42 TKA's diagnosed with arthrofibrosis from 2013 to 2019 at a single institution with a minimum 2-year follow-up was performed. The primary outcome was ROM (flexion, extension, and total arc of motion) before and after revision TKA, and secondary outcomes included patient reported outcomes information system (PROMIS) scores. Categorical data were compared using chi-squared analysis, and paired samples t tests were performed to compare ROM at three different times: pre-primary TKA, pre-revision TKA, and post-revision TKA. A multivariable linear regression analysis was performed to assess for effect modification on total ROM.

RESULTS

The patient's pre-revision mean flexion was 85.6 degrees, and mean extension was 10.1 degrees. At the time of the revision, the mean age of the cohort was 64.7 years, the average body mass index (BMI) was 29.8, and 62% were female. At a mean follow-up of 4.5 years, revision TKA significantly improved terminal flexion by 18.4 degrees (p < 0.001), terminal extension by 6.8 degrees (p = 0.007), and total arc of motion by 25.2 degrees (p < 0.001). The final ROM after revision TKA was not significantly different from the patient's pre-primary TKA ROM (p = 0.759). PROMIS physical function, depression, and pain interference scores were 39 (SD = 7.72), 49 (SD = 8.39), and 62 (SD = 7.25), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Revision TKA for arthrofibrosis significantly improved ROM at a mean follow-up of 4.5 years with over 25 degrees of improvement in the total arc of motion, resulting in final ROM similar to pre-primary TKA ROM. PROMIS physical function and pain scores showed moderate dysfunction, while depression scores were within normal limits. While physical therapy and MUA remain the gold standard for the early treatment of stiffness after TKA, revision TKA can improve ROM.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

The indication for aseptic revision TKA does not influence 1-year outcomes: an analysis of 178 full TKA revisions from a prospective institutional registry

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Outcomes following revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) may depend on the indication for revision surgery. We compared pain, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and patient satisfaction among different indications for an aseptic TKA revision.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This was a retrospective study of prospective data from an institutional registry of 178 primary TKAs revised between 2012 and 2020. Patients were grouped by the main reason for their revision: loosening, malposition, instability, or stiffness. Pain during mobilization and at rest (NRS 0-10), physical function (KOOS-PS and KSS), and quality of life (EQ-5D) were surveyed preoperatively and at 2 months and 1 year postoperatively. Patient satisfaction was evaluated through questions related to knee function and their willingness to undergo the same surgery again at 1-year follow-up.

RESULTS

Pain and PROMs improved in all groups and did not differ statistically significantly between the 4 groups at 1-year follow-up, but equivalence for pain was not confirmed between groups. Overall, pain during mobilization improved by 2.4 (95% CI 1.9-3.0) at 1-year follow-up, which was both clinically and statistically significant. Improvements were seen within 2 months of surgery, with no further improvements seen 1 year postoperatively. Approximately 2/3 of patients reported that their knee function had improved and would undergo the same surgery again, at 1-year follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Statistically significant and clinically relevant improvements in pain and PROMs were seen in all 4 revision groups 1 year after revision TKA. These results may assist clinicians and patients during preoperative counselling.

Treatment of arthrofibrosis and stiffness after total knee arthroplasty: an updated review of the literature

PURPOSE

There is currently no consensus regarding the optimal treatment for stiffness following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). With the increased utilization of value-based models, it is important to determine the most effective treatments that will reduce the need for further intervention and additional expenditure. A systematic review was performed to compare the outcomes of manipulation under anaesthesia (MUA), arthroscopic lysis of adhesions (aLOA), and revision TKA (rTKA) for arthrofibrosis and stiffness following TKA.

METHODS

PubMed and MEDLINE databases were reviewed for articles published through October 2020. Studies were included if they reported patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) following MUA, aLOA, or rTKA. The primary endpoint was PROMs, while secondary outcomes included range of motion and the percentage of patients who pursued further treatment for stiffness.

RESULTS

A total of 40 studies were included: 21 on rTKA, 7 on aLOA, and 14 on MUA. The mean or median post-operative arc ROM was > 90° in 6/20 (30%) rTKA, 5/7 (71%) aLOA, and 7/10 (70%) MUA studies. Post-operative Knee Society (KSS) clinical and functional scores were the greatest in patients who underwent MUA and aLOA. As many as 43% of rTKA patients required further care compared to 25% of aLOA and 17% of MUA patients.

CONCLUSION

Stiffness following TKA remains a challenging condition to treat. Nonetheless, current evidence suggests that patients who undergo rTKA have poorer clinical outcomes and a greater need for further treatment compared to patients who undergo MUA or aLOA.

Rotating Hinge Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty for Severe Arthrofibrosis

Stiffness following total knee arthroplasty is a challenging complication for both the patient and surgeon, with an incidence that ranges from 1% to 13%1. There are several correctable mechanical causes for stiffness including malposition, malalignment, overstuffing, aseptic loosening, patella baja, and heterotopic ossification2. Idiopathic stiffness is often termed arthrofibrosis and is more difficult to treat1. Once patients have exhausted nonoperative options, including physical therapy and manipulation under anesthesia, revision surgery may be considered. Rotating hinge revision total knee arthroplasty has been shown to be an effective surgical treatment for severe arthrofibrosis.

Description

First, remove all soft-tissue and osseous sources of stiffness and adequately expose the knee, then remove all previous components. Create a stable and balanced extension gap, and, conversely, a relatively loose flexion gap, which allows for a substantial increase in range of motion. Then, in order to prevent instability in flexion, a rotating hinge prosthesis is utilized, which allows for appropriate kinematic motion despite gap imbalance. Additional steps to regain flexion include medial and lateral distal femoral partial condylectomies, as well as patellar component revision.

Alternatives

The first line of treatment for stiffness following total knee arthroplasty is nonoperative and is mainly focused on physical therapy3. Manipulation under anesthesia can also be performed within the first 12 weeks postoperatively3. Surgical treatments can include arthroscopic debridement as well as open debridement with possible polyethylene liner exchange. If there is a mechanical cause for stiffness, then this should also be addressed surgically. For cases of arthrofibrosis without a clear mechanical etiology or for cases in which the above treatment has failed, complete revision of the femoral and tibial components should be considered3. An alternative option to the technique proposed here is to utilize a varus-valgus constrained implant.

Rationale

Revision with a hinged implant allows for a more aggressive approach to regaining motion, as compared with all other surgical alternatives. By revising all components, the surgeon is able to remove all sources of stiffness and reconstruct the knee until as much range of motion as possible is achieved. Unfortunately, even with balanced extension and flexion gaps, refractory stiffness is common. A solution for this residual stiffness is to unbalance the gaps and create a loose flexion gap. By doing so, the surgeon is advised to switch to a hinged implant to create a kinematically balanced knee. Any other revision implant, such as a varus-valgus constrained implant, would risk flexion instability.

Expected Outcomes

Several studies have examined the use of revision total knee arthroplasty with a hinged implant for arthrofibrosis and have showed substantial improvements in knee range of motion. Bingham et al. showed that the rotating hinge group had a 20° improvement in range of motion (p = 0.048)1. Hermans et al. found a 35.8° flexion gain in the hinge group compared with a 14.2° flexion gain in the varus-valgus constrained group (p = 0.0002)4. van Rensch et al. found a median gain of 45° of range of motion5. Patients should be aware that this procedure involving the use of a hinged implant has similar risks to other revision total knee arthroplasty procedures; specifically, there is a risk of recurrent arthrofibrosis as well as mechanical complications1,5.

Important Tips

Achieve adequate exposure with a quadriceps snip.Perform a thorough synovectomy and debridement.Create a balanced extension gap with a relatively loose flexion gap.Distalize the joint line by resecting additional proximal tibia in cases of patella baja.Beware of refractory stiffness as a result of a scarred extensor mechanism.Consider revising the patellar component.Consider performing a partial condylectomy at the medial and lateral distal aspects of the femur.

Acronyms and Abbreviations

TKA = total knee arthroplastyAP = anteroposteriorCT = computed tomographyMRI = magnetic resonance imagingRHK = rotating hinge kneeNSAIDs = nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.

A comparative study of total knee arthroplasty outcome for stiff knee with or without sequential antirheumatic drug treatment

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of antirheumatic drug treatment on knee function of stiff knee patients after total knee arthroplasty (TKA).

METHODS

Twenty-seven patients (44 knees) of active RA (rheumatoid arthritis) or AS (ankylosing spondylitis) with stiff knees were included in this study. And they were divided into two groups according to continue antirheumatic drug treatment or not after TKA: the therapeutic group (16 patients, 27 knees) and the controlled group (11 patients, 17 knees). The outcomes were assessed by Knee Society Score (KSS), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), range of motion (ROM) (at week 6, month 6, year 1, and year 2), "Forgotten Joint" Scale (FJS), with or without crutch, satisfaction, and revision (at year 2). The knee prosthetic loosening was evaluated by the followed X-ray at each following time.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up time was 51 months (34-69 months). The KSS was higher at week 6 after TKA in the therapeutic group (p < 0.05); however, the functional scores of KSS at month 6, year 1, and year 2 in the controlled group were more points improved. The therapeutic patients preferred the knee more at month 6, year 1, and year 2. The differences of KSS clinical scores (at month 6, year 1, and year 2), VAS, ROM, Crutch and FJS between the two groups were not statistically significant (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

For patients with stiff knees, the sequential antirheumatic drug treatment after TKA had no obvious effect on postoperative KSS, but can improve the satisfaction.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Revision knee arthroplasty: Can good outcomes be achieved at lower volumes?

BACKGROUND

The National Joint Registry (NJR) demonstrates a re-revision rate for primary knee arthroplasty of 14.2% at 7 years. The 2015 Getting it Right First Time (GIRFT) report highlighted that 58% of surgeons undertaking revision knee arthroplasty (RKA) performed fewer than five cases per year. It has been suggested that revision cases be centralised in specialist centres with a multidisciplinary team (MDT) approach. Such a hub and spoke or cluster models may still require revision surgery to be performed at relatively low volume units.

METHODS

An analysis of RKA surgery performed in a four surgeon, lower volume revision knee unit over 10 years to December 2016 was undertaken. The effect of the introduction of a MDT was reviewed. The minimum follow up was two years. The primary outcome measure was re-revision. Hospital data as well as individual surgeon NJR reports were used to ensure all re-revisions were accounted for. Outcome scores were available for 68% of cases.

RESULTS

There were 192 RKAs performed in 187 patients at a mean (stdev) of 6.3 (5.4) years from the index procedure. The mean age at surgery was 68.2 (10.9) years. Twenty nine (15.5%) patients had died at the time of final review. Twelve (6.3%) cases required a further revision procedure. The commonest complication was stiffness requiring MUA. The overall 7 year survivorship was 94.9% (95% CI 90.2-97.3). The mean Oxford score at 5.4 years was 30.4 (10.4).

CONCLUSIONS

RKA can be reliably performed at lower volume centres with appropriate MDT systems in place.

Patients with Dupuytren's Contracture, Ledderhose Disease, and Peyronie's Disease are at higher risk of arthrofibrosis following total knee arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a successful treatment for patients with late stage osteoarthritis, yet arthrofibrosis remains a consistent cause of TKA failure. Dupuytren's, Ledderhose and Peyronie's Diseases are related conditions of increased fibroblast proliferation. The aim of this study was to identify whether an association exists between these conditions and arthrofibrosis following TKA.

METHODS

Patient records were queried from 2010 to 2016 using an administrative claims database to compare the rates of arthrofibrosis, manipulation under anesthesia (MUA), lysis of adhesions (LOA), and revision TKA in patients with independent chart diagnoses of Dupuytren's Contracture, Ledderhose, or Peyronie's Diseases versus those without. Complications were queried and compared using multivariate logistic regression.

RESULTS

Patients with Dupuytren's (n = 5,232) and Ledderhose (n = 50,716) had a significantly higher rate of ankylosis following TKA: 30-days (OR, 1.54; OR, 1.23), 90-days (OR, 1.20; OR, 1.24), 6-months (OR, 1.23; OR, 1.23), and 1-year (OR, 1.28; OR, 1.23), while patients with Peyronie's (n = 1,186) had a higher rate of diagnosis at 6-months (OR, 1.37) and 1-year (OR, 1.35). Patients with diagnoses of any of the fibroproliferative diseases had a statistically higher risk of MUA at 90-days, 6-month, and 1-year following primary TKA. These cohorts did not have a significantly higher rate of revision TKA.

CONCLUSION

There is an increased odds risk of arthrofibrosis and MUA in patients who have undergone TKA and have a diagnosis of Dupuytren's Contracture, Ledderhose, or Peyronie's Diseases. Improvements to frequency and application of post-operative treatment should be considered in these cohorts to improve outcomes.

Manipulation Under Anesthesia After Total Knee: Who Still Requires a Revision Arthroplasty?

BACKGROUND

Stiffness after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a multifactorial complication involving patient, implant, surgical technique, and rehabilitation, occasionally necessitating manipulation under anesthesia (MUA) or revision. Few modern databases contain sufficient longitudinal information of all factors. We characterized MUA after primary TKA and identified independent risk factors for revision TKA after MUA from the American Joint Replacement Registry.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed primary TKAs for American Joint Replacement Registry patients ≥65 years from January 1, 2012 to 31 March, 2019. We linked these to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services database to identify MUA and revision TKA procedure codes. We compared groups with chi-squared testing, identifying independent risk factors for subsequent revision with binary logistic regression presented as odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

Of 664,604 primary TKAs, 3918 (0.6%) underwent MUA after a median of 2.0 ± 1.0 months. Revision surgery occurred in 131 (3.4%) MUA patients after a median of 9.0 months. Timing of MUA was not different between revision and no revision patients (P = .09). Patients undergoing MUA compared to no MUA were older (age 71.5 vs 70.7, P < .01), predominantly female (63.9% vs 61.2%, P < .01), current/former tobacco users (24.2% vs 13.3%, P < .01), with osteoarthritis diagnoses (98.0% vs 84.3%, P < .01). Independent risk factors for revision after MUA were male gender (1.56, 1.09-2.22).

CONCLUSION

The incidence of MUA after primary TKA is low (0.6%) in Medicare patients ≥65 years of age; 3.4% progress to revision after a median of 9 months. Being male was significantly associated with revision TKA after MUA.

Long-Term Outcome Following Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty is Associated With Indication for Revision

BACKGROUND

There is limited information about long-term clinical outcomes following revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in relation to the indication for revision. Previously, a clear relation between indication for revision and clinical outcome was shown after 2 years. Present study evaluated (1) whether the reported association at 2 year remains present at 7.5 years, and (2) how clinical outcome at 7.5 years developed compared to baseline and 2-year follow-up, and (3) whether patients had additional adverse events.

METHODS

A cohort of 129 patients with a total system revision TKA was selected. Range of motion, Visual Analog Scale for pain and satisfaction, and clinical and functional Knee Society Score were obtained preoperatively, at 3 months, 1, 2, and 7.5 years. Reasons for revision were septic loosening, aseptic loosening, malposition, instability, and severe stiffness.

RESULTS

Patients revised for severe stiffness had significantly worse outcomes. No difference was found between the other indications. The clinical outcome after revision TKA at 7.5 years remained stable for septic and aseptic loosening, malposition, and instability but deteriorated slightly for the severe stiffness group. Visual Analog Scale satisfaction remained constant for all indications. There were 11 additional complications between 2- and 7.5-year follow-up, 9 of which necessitated reoperation.

CONCLUSION

All indications except severe stiffness had a similar clinical outcome which was maintained up to 7.5-year follow-up. The severe stiffness group had worse outcomes and deteriorated slightly at longer follow-up. Outcome at 3 months seems predictive for long-term outcome. Additional complications did not differ significantly for the different reasons for revision.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, prognostic study.

The stiff total knee arthroplasty: causes, treatment modalities and results

It is clear that the stiff total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a multifactorial entity associated with preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative factors.

Management of the stiff TKA is best achieved by preventing its occurrence using strategies to control preoperative factors, avoid intraoperative technical errors and perform aggressive, painless postoperative physical medicine and rehabilitation; adequate pain control is paramount in non-invasive management.

Careful attention to surgical exposure, restoring gap balance, minimizing surgical trauma to the patellar ligament/extensor mechanism, appropriate implant selection, pain control and adequate physical medicine and rehabilitation (physiotherapy, Astym therapy) all serve to reduce its incidence.

For established stiff TKA, there are multiple treatment options available including mobilization under anaesthesia (MUA), arthroscopic arthrolysis, revision TKA, and combined procedures.

Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2019;4:602-610. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.4.180105