A classification-based approach to the patella in revision total knee arthroplasty

Management of Bone Loss in Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty: An International Consensus Symposium

The evaluation, classification, and treatment of significant bone loss after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) continue to be a complex and debated topic in revision TKA (rTKA). Despite the introduction of new evidence and innovative technologies aimed at addressing the approach and care of severe bone loss in rTKA, there is no single document that systematically incorporates these newer surgical approaches. Therefore, a comprehensive review of the treatment of severe bone loss in rTKA is necessary. The Stavros Niarchos Foundation Complex Joint Reconstruction Center Hospital for Special Surgery, dedicated to clinical care and research primarily in revision hip and knee replacement, convened a Management of Bone Loss in Revision TKA symposium on June 24, 2022. At this meeting, the 42 international invited experts were divided into groups; each group was assigned to discuss questions related to 1 of the 4 topics: (1) assessing preoperative workup and imaging, anticipated bone loss, classification system, and implant surveillance; (2) achieving durable fixation in the setting of significant bone loss in revision TKA; (3) managing patellar bone loss and the extensor mechanism in cases of severe bone loss; and (4) considering the use of complex modular replacement systems: hinges, distal femoral, and proximal tibial replacements. Each group came to consensus, when possible, based on an extensive literature review and interactive discussion on their group topic. This document reviews each these 4 areas, the consensus of each group, and directions for future research.

The Fate and Relevance of the Patella in Two-Stage Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty for Periprosthetic Joint Infection

BACKGROUND

It remains unclear whether reimplantation of a patellar component during a two-stage revision for periprosthetic total knee arthroplasty infection (PJI) affects patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) or implant survivorship. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether patellar resurfacing during reimplantation confers a functional benefit or increases implant survivorship after two-stage treatment for PJI.

METHODS

Two-stage revisions for knee PJI performed by three surgeons at a single tertiary care center were reviewed retrospectively. All original patellar components and cement were removed during resection and the patella was resurfaced whenever feasible during reimplantation. PROMs, implant survivorship, and radiographic measurements (patellar tilt and displacement) were compared between knees reimplanted with a patellar component versus those without a patellar component.

RESULTS

A total of 103 patients met the inclusion criteria. Forty-three patients (41.7%) underwent reimplantation with, and 60 patients (58.3%) without a patellar component. At a mean follow-up of 33.5 months, there were no significant differences in patient demographics or PROMs between groups (P ≥ .156). No significant differences were found in the estimated Kaplan-Meier all-cause, aseptic, or septic survivorship between groups (P ≥ .342) at a maximum of 75 months follow-up. There was no significant difference in the change (pre-resection to post-reimplant) of patellar tilt (P = .504) or displacement (P = .097) between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Patellar resurfacing during knee reimplantation does not appear to meaningfully impact postoperative PROMs or survivorship. Given the risk of potential extensor mechanism complications with patellar resurfacing, surgeons may choose to leave the patella without an implant during total knee reimplantation and expect similar clinical outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Resurfacing Egg-shell Patellar Defect in a Single-staged Primary total Knee Arthroplasty - A Case Report

Introduction

Patellofemoral biomechanics are a very critical factor for patient satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty. Patellar defects in a primary total knee arthroplasty are rare. We present a rare case of valgus deformed knee with an eroded egg-shell like patella managed with primary knee arthroplasty.

Case Report

A 58-year-old female with bilateral knee pain for 35-years presented to us with a bilateral valgus knee. The knee range of movement was restricted more on the left side and severely restricting her activities of daily living. She had an egg-shell like eroded patellar defect in an osteoarthritic knee for which, she underwent primary total knee arthroplasty and patellar resurfacing with autologous bone graft harvested from the tibial cut bone.

Conclusion

We have presented a rare case of a combination of patellar defect in an Osteoarthritic knee which was managed by modified gapbalancing technique of TKA with a novel method of patellar resurfacing in a single stage with good functional results at 1-year postoperatively. This case improves our understanding of the management of such complex scenarios and, more importantly raises the questions our understanding and need of classification of such patellar defects in a primary arthritic knee.

Biconvex Patellar Components: 96% Durability at 10 Years in 262 Revision Total Knee Arthroplasties

BACKGROUND

The optimal strategy to address osseous deficiencies of the patella during revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) remains controversial. One possible solution is a cemented biconvex patellar component used such that the non-articular convexity both improves fixation and makes up for bone loss. The aim of this study was to determine the outcomes of the use of biconvex patellar components in a large series of revision TKAs.

METHODS

From 1996 to 2014, 262 revision TKAs were performed at a single institution using a biconvex patellar component. Implant survivorship, clinical and radiographic results, and complications were assessed. The mean patient age at the TKA revision was 69 years, and 53% of the patients were female. The mean follow-up was 7 years.

RESULTS

The 10-year survivorship free of revision of the biconvex patellar component due to aseptic loosening was 96%. The 10-year survivorship free of any revision of the biconvex patellar component was 87%. The 10-year survivorship free of any rerevision and free of any reoperation was 75% and 70%, respectively. The mean Knee Society Score (KSS) improved from 45.4 before the index revision to 67.7 after it. The mean residual composite thickness seen on the most recent radiographs was 18.1 mm. In addition to the complications leading to revision, the most common complications were periprosthetic patellar fracture (6%), of which 3 required revision; superficial wound infection (6%) requiring antibiotic therapy only or irrigation and debridement; and arthrofibrosis (3%).

CONCLUSIONS

In this cohort of 262 revision TKAs, biconvex patellar components used to treat marked patellar bone loss demonstrated excellent durability with a 10-year survivorship free of patellar rerevision due to aseptic loosening of 96%. The biconvex patellar components were reliable as evidenced by substantial improvements in clinical outcomes scores and a low risk of complications.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Patellar Tracking in Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty: Does Retaining a Patella From a Different Implant System Matter?

BACKGROUND

Patellar maltracking is a potential surgical complication following total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and can result in anterior knee pain, recurrent patellar dislocation, and damage to the medial patellar soft tissue stabilizers. Data remain unclear as to whether the patellar button should be revised during a revision TKA (rTKA) if changing the component implant system. Our study examines whether retaining the original patellar button during an rTKA using a different implant system affects patellar tracking.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study of rTKA patients between August 2011 and June 2019 was performed at an urban, tertiary referral center. Patients were divided into 2 cohorts depending on whether their retained patella from their primary TKA was of the same (SIM) or different implant manufacturer (DIM) as the revision system used. Radiographic measurements were performed on preoperative and postoperative knee radiographs and differences were compared between the 2 groups. Baseline demographic data were also collected.

RESULTS

Of the 293 consecutive, aseptic rTKA cases identified, 122 underwent revision in the SIM cohort and 171 in the DIM cohort. There were no demographic differences between the groups. No statistical significance was calculated for differences in preoperative and postoperative patellar tilt or Insall-Salvati ratio between the groups. The DIM group was found to have more lateral patellar translation (-0.01 ± 6.09 vs 2.68 ± 7.61 mm, P = .001). However, when calculating differences in the magnitude of the translation (thereby removing differences due to laterality), no difference was observed (0.06 ± 3.69 vs 0.52 ± 4.95 mm, P = .394).

CONCLUSION

No clinically significant differences in patellar tracking were observed when the original patellar component was retained and a different revision implant system was used. Given the inherent risks of bone loss and fracture with patellar component revision, surgeons performing rTKA may retain the primary patella if it is well fixed and can still expect appropriate patellar tracking regardless of the revision implant system used.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III, Retrospective cohort study.

Patellar Rebar Augmentation in Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

In revision total knee arthroplasty, osteolysis, mechanical abrasion, and infection may leave patellar bone stock severely attenuated with cavitary and/or segmental rim deficiencies that compromise fixation of patellar implant pegs. The purpose of this study was to retrospectively review the use of cortical "rebar" screws to augment cement fixation in revision patelloplasty.

METHODS

From 2006 to 2018, dorsal patellar rebar technique was used for patellar reconstruction in 128 of 1037 revision total knee arthroplasty cases (12.3%). Follow-up was achieved with serial radiographs and prospective comparison of Knee Society Scores (KSSs) for clinical outcome. Complications and implant failures requiring reoperation or modified rehabilitation were also assessed.

RESULTS

Of the 128 patellar revisions performed using the rebar technique, 69 patients were women and 59 patients were men. The average age of the group was 69.5 years (range, 32-83 years). The mean follow-up of the cohort was 37 months (range, 13-109 months). The most common causes for revision were kinematic conflict, periprosthetic joint infection, and aseptic loosening. The median number of rebar screws used was 5 (range, 1-13). Preoperative KSSs for the study cohort averaged 50 (range, 0-90) At latest follow-up, mean KSS was 85 (range, 54-100). There were 4 patellar-related complications (3.1%) with no implant failures at study conclusion. Retrieval analysis revealed rigid fixation of the reconstructed patellar component in all cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Patellar rebar screw augmentation is a useful technique when there are significant cavitary deficiencies and limited segmental rim deficiencies. This technique allows the surgeon to extend indications for patellar revision arthroplasty.

Biomechanical Study of Patellar Component Fixation with Varying Degrees of Bone Loss

BACKGROUND

The decision as to whether or not to resurface the patella in revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is affected by the amount of patellar bone stock remaining; however, the impact of the cancellous bone status on patellar component fixation has not been studied. Therefore, we conducted a biomechanical study of patellar component fixation with varying degrees of cancellous bone loss.

METHODS

Sixty pairs of cadaveric patellae were randomly assigned between 3 groups and prepared in similar manner to a TKA with the standard 3-hole configuration. A control patella and an experimental patella were designated in each pair. To simulate bone loss in the experimental patellae, 1, 2, and 3 of the standard drill holes were uniformly enlarged to 12 mm in group 1, group 2, and group 3, respectively. Afterward, an all-polyethylene patellar component was cemented to each patella, as done intraoperatively. Patellar components were then sheared off using a materials testing system. The resulting mean offset yield force was analyzed within each group using paired t-tests.

RESULTS

The mean offset yield force for the control patellae was greater than the experimental patellae in group 1. In groups 2 and 3, the experimental patellae produced a greater mean offset yield force than the control patellae. Comparison within each group did not demonstrate a statistically significant difference.

CONCLUSION

Bone loss with enlargement of the patellar fixation holes, as is frequently seen in revision TKA, with holes up to 12 mm, does not significantly decrease patellar component fixation shear strength in this biomechanical cadaveric study.

Ignore the Patella in Revision Total Knee Surgery: A Minimum 5-Year Follow-Up With Patella Component Retention

BACKGROUND

In the setting of aseptic revision, a common question is: what should be done with the previously resurfaced patella? We report on a series of aseptic revision total knee arthroplasties (RTKA) where one or both components were revised and the patella was not.

METHODS

The study group was 147 consecutive RTKA in 137 patients with a mean age of 70.1 ± 9.3 years where the patella was not revised. The average body mass index was 31.0 ± 5.4 kg/m². Follow-up was a minimum of 5 years (range, 5 to 12 years). At final follow-up, 13 patients died and 2 patients were lost to follow-up leaving 122 patients and 130 knees available for review. Mean time from primary surgery to RTKA was 9.2 ± 5.5 years. Both components were revised in 50 knees, the femur only in 11 knees, the tibia only in 12 knees, and 57 had an isolated polyethylene revision. We found 5 patients with a mismatch between the patella and femoral components and 30 cases with patella component wear identified intraoperatively.

RESULTS

At final follow-up, there were no reoperations on any patella and none were at risk of failure. There were 6 knees with a lateral patella tilt beyond 10°, but none were subluxed. Knee Society Scores averaged 85 ± 17.2 points at final follow-up.

CONCLUSION

At midterm follow-up in this group of RTKA where the patella was not revised, we identified no subsequent failures of the patella. This is despite the presence of mild patella polyethylene wear and mismatched shapes in several knees.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.