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

Similar kinematic patterns between revision total stabilized (TS) and primary posterior stabilized (PS) knee prostheses: a prospective case-controlled study with gait assessment

PURPOSE

There are increased surgical considerations when revising total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in active patients. Few studies have assessed if a semi-constrained [Total Stabilized (TS)] prostheses has similar knee biomechanics to a primary posterior stabilized (PS) prosthesis. The aim was to compare the gait parameters in patients with PS or TS TKA and normal controls.

METHODS

32 patients with TKA were prospectively included with either a primary PS (n = 15) or a revision TS (n = 17) prosthesis. Gait analysis was performed at 6 months postoperatively for each patient, with an optoelectronic knee assessment device (KneeKG®) assessing the displacement of the tibia relative to the femur during the different gait phases (flexion/extension, anterior/posterior translation, adduction/abduction, internal/external rotation). A control group (n = 12) of healthy knees was compared with the TKA groups.

RESULTS

There were no significant kinematic differences between PS and TS groups. The maximum knee flexion during gait was 53° ± 8.1° in the PS group vs 52° ± 8.7° in the TS group. The antero-posterior translation was similar in both group (2.3 ± 0.5 mm vs 2.6 ± 0.9 mm, respectively). Peak varus angle during loading and swing phase was slightly higher in the TS group (2.7° ± 0.7° and 5.2° ± 0.9°) than in the PS group (2.9° ± 0.6° and 5.6° ± 1.2°), without significant difference. The ranges in internal/external rotation were similar between PS and TS TKA (3.7° ± 0.5° vs 3.3° ± 0.6°, respectively). Both designs approached closely the normal gait patterns of the control group except in the frontal plane.

CONCLUSION

Single radius TS TKA has gait parameters similar to single radius PS TKA. Use of a single radius TS TKA in revision TKA is not detrimental to a patient's gait pattern. Both designs approached closely the normal gait patterns of the control group.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prospective, case-control study; Level III.

Cemented Patellar Implant Malposition: A Non-Issue for the Painful Total Knee Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Non-optimal patellofemoral relationships may influence treatment decisions during revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA). We performed this study to determine whether patellar implant malposition or patellar tilt is associated with inferior patient-reported outcome scores or patient satisfaction after primary TKA.

METHODS

We identified 396 TKA patients (439 knees) from an institutional registry who had undergone patellar resurfacing, with preoperative and 6-week postoperative radiographs available, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) completed at least 1 year after surgery (mean 505 days). Preoperative patient demographic characteristics, patient-reported expectations, National Institutes of Health - Patient Reported Outcomes Measurements Instrument Systems global health, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacement, and University of California Los Angeles activity scores were compared between 60 TKAs performed with non-optimal patellofemoral relationships (36 patellar implant malposition, 24 patellar tilt) and 379 TKAs performed with optimal patellar implant placement.

RESULTS

There were no differences between the 2 cohorts regarding demographic features, preoperative radiographic disease severity, expectations, and PROMs; or postoperative tibiofemoral component alignment, PROMs, and patient-reported satisfaction (P = .48). Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacement improved similarly (P = .62) for patients with optimal resurfacing (48.5-77.6 points) and non-optimal resurfacing (47.7-76.6 points). A similar proportion of optimal and suboptimal resurfaced patients reported being satisfied with their TKA (92.7% vs 88.1%, P = .29).

CONCLUSION

Although suboptimal patellofemoral relationships may prompt treatment considerations during revision TKA, the data obtained from this study do not suggest that patellar implant malposition or patellar tilt independently contribute to postoperative pain, functional limitation, or dissatisfaction.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

This is a level III, retrospective cohort study.

EFORT recommendations for off-label use, mix & match and mismatch in hip and knee arthroplasty

Off-label use is frequently practiced in primary and revision arthroplasty, as there may be indications for the application of implants for purposes outside the one the manufacturers intended.

Under certain circumstances, patients may benefit from selective application of mix & match. This can refer to primary hip arthroplasty (if evidence suggests that the combination of devices from different manufacturers has superior results) and revision hip or knee arthroplasty (when the exchange of one component only is necessary and the invasiveness of surgery can be reduced).

Within the EFORT ‘Implant and Patient Safety Initiative’, evidence- and consensus-based recommendations have been developed for the safe application of off-label use and mix & match in primary as well as revision hip and knee arthroplasty.

Prior to the application of a medical device for hip or knee arthroplasty off-label and within a mix & match situation, surgeons should balance the risks and benefits to the patient, obtain informed consent, and document the decision process appropriately.

Nevertheless, it is crucial for surgeons to only combine implants that are compatible. Mismatch of components, where their sizes or connections do not fit, may have catastrophic effects and is a surgical mistake.

Surgeons must be fully aware of the features of the components that they use in off-label indications or during mix & match applications, must be appropriately trained and must audit their results.

Considering the frequent practice of off-label and mix & match as well as the potential medico-legal issues, further research is necessary to obtain more data about the appropriate indications and outcomes for those procedures.

Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2021;6:982-1005. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.6.210080

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.

Patellar component size effects patellar tilt in total knee arthroplasty with patellar resurfacing

PURPOSE

Patellar component positioning and patellofemoral kinematics are of great importance in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The factors influencing patellar tilt are femoral rotation and lateral patellar release. However, the effect of patellar component size remains unknown. The aim of this study was to evaluate the intra-operative risk factors for patellar tilt, particularly the effect of the patellar component size. The hypothesis was that increasing the patellar component size would reduce the risk of patellar tilt.

METHODS

878 primary TKAs with patellar resurfacing were included between January 2015 and October 2018. Analysis was performed at 1-year postoperatively on patients categorized into two groups: patellar tilt (PT) and no patellar tilt (NPT). A multivariate analysis was performed for the effect of patellar component size, femoral rotation, femoral overbuilding, patellar thickness and lateral release on patellar tilt risk. Secondary analysis was performed for any difference in clinical outcomes and revision rates between groups.

RESULTS

Multivariate analysis showed that increasing the patellar component size decreased the risk of patellar tilt by 37% (p < 0.001). Placing the femoral component at 3° of external rotation decreased the risk of patellar tilt by 67% (p < 0.001). Secondary analysis showed better clinical outcomes in the NPT group, especially regarding global satisfaction, and KSS objective and subjective scores. The revision for any cause was less in the NPT group (p = 0.019). The cause for TKA revision was related to the patellar in 11% of cases in the NPT group and 65% in the PT group (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Increased patellar component size and positioning the femoral component in external rotation decreases the risk of patellar tilt, improves clinical outcomes and decreases the rate of surgical revision.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.