Constraint choice in revision knee arthroplasty: study protocol of a randomised controlled trial assessing the effect of level of constraint on postoperative outcome

Is a greater degree of constraint really harmful? Clinical biomechanical comparative study between condylar constrained knee and rotating hinge prosthesis

BACKGROUND

The real degree of constraint of rotating hinge knee and condylar constrained prostheses is a matter of discussion in revision knee arthroplasty. The objective of this study is to compare the tibial rotation between implants in the clinical settings.

METHODS

An investigator blinded experimental study was designed including 20 patients: in 10 of them a rotating hinge knee prosthesis (Endomodel®, LINK) was implanted and in the remaining 10 a constrained condylar knee prosthesis (LCCK®, Zimmer) was used. A medial parapatellar approach was performed and implantation was performed according to conventional surgical technique. Tibial rotation was measured with two accelerometers in full extension and at 30°, 60° and 90° of flexion. Pre and postoperative Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score was recorded.

FINDINGS

Both groups were homogenous in age (73.4 years in rotating hinge knee prosthesis vs 74 years in constrained condylar knee group), sex, laterality and preoperative Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (p > 0.05). The postoperative Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score was significantly higher in the rotating hinge knee prosthesis group (80.98 vs 76.28). The degrees of tibial rotation measured by inertial sensors in the rotating hinge knee prosthesis group were also significantly higher than those measured in the constrained condylar knee group (5.66° vs 2.1°) with p = 0.001.

INTERPRETATION

Rotating hinge knee prosthesis appears to represent a lower rotational constraint degree than constrained condylar knee systems in clinical practice and it may increase the clinical satisfaction. The clinical significance: Rotating hinge knee prosthesis appears to represent a lower constraint degree than constrained condylar knee systems in clinical practice.

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.

Similar outcomes of constrained condylar knee and rotating hinge prosthesis in revision surgery for extension instability after primary total knee arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Instability is one of the most common reasons for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) failure. Constrained prosthesis can be used for significant ligamentous laxity, but there is not much evidence on the appropriate level of restriction for unstable varus-valgus TKA. The objective of this study was to compare the outcome and survival at a minimum follow-up of five years between rotating hinge knee prosthesis (RHK) and constrained condylar knee prosthesis (CCK) for extension instability following primary TKA.

HYPOTHESIS

For symptomatic extension instability after primary TKA, good functional outcomes and survival can be achieved with both designs.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Consecutive patients with unstable primary TKA who underwent revision with either RHK (n=34) or CCK (n=30) were retrospectively compared. Assessments were performed by the Knee Society Scores (KSS), and visual analogue scales (VAS) for pain and patient satisfaction. Radiological evaluation was made. Complications and re-operations were analyzed.

RESULTS

Mean post-operative follow-up was 10.3 (range 5-16) years for both groups. At the final follow-up, there was no significant difference between groups in the KSS-knee (p=0.228) or KSS-function (p=0.324) score, VAS-pain (p=0.563), VAS-satisfaction (p=0.780), major complication rate (p=0.194), or TKA survival at 10 years (p=0.091).

CONCLUSION

The present study showed comparable good functional outcomes and survival at long-term between RHK and CCK arthroplasties. Both designs can be recommended for revision of total knee arthroplasty with symptomatic extension instability.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Implant survivorship, functional outcomes and complications with the use of rotating hinge knee implants: a systematic review

Background

With more complex primary and revision total knee arthroplasty procedures there is often the need to use more constrained prostheses. This study aims to investigate patient-relevant outcomes following primary and revision rotating-hinged total knee arthroplasty.

Methods

Electronic searches were performed using four databases from their date of inception to January 2021. Relevant studies were identified, with data extracted and analysed using PRIMSA guidelines.

Results

Nineteen studies were included, producing a cohort of 568 primary and 413 revision rotating hinge total knee arthroplasties (TKAs). Survival was assessed at 1-, 5-, and 10-year post-implantation. Sensitivity analyses based on person-time incidence ratios (PTIRs) were prespecified for studies not reporting survival at these timepoints. From the primary hinge TKA cohort, the median survival at 1 year was 93.4% and at 10 years it was 87%. The PTIR at long-term follow-up of this primary cohort was 1.07 (95% CI 0.4–1.7) per 100 person-years. From the revision hinge TKA cohort, the median survival at 1 year was 79.6%, and at 10 years it was 65.1%. The PTIR at long term-follow-up of this revision cohort was 1.55 (95% CI 0.9–2.3) per 100 person-years. Post-operative flexion range of motion (ROM) was 110° for primary hinge TKA and 103° for revision hinge TKA. Compared with baseline, the Knee Society Score (KSS) and Knee Society Function Score (KSFS) improved for both groups post-operatively (primary: KSS 17 to 86, KSFS 28 to 58; revision: KSS 37 to 82, KSFS 34 to 61).

Conclusion

The quality of the evidence for patient-relevant outcomes following hinged knee arthroplasty was limited. While there is the potential for high early revision rates, where successful, large functional benefits may be achieved.

Long-term outcomes of one single-design varus valgus constrained versus one single-design rotating hinge in revision knee arthroplasty after over 10-year follow-up

Background

The appropriate degree of constraint in knee prosthetic revision is unknown, necessitating the use of the lowest possible constraint. This study aimed to compare the long-term clinical and survival results of revision with rotation hinge knee (RHK) VS constrained condylar constrained knee (CCK) implants.

Methods

Overall, 117 revision case were prospectively reviewed and dividing into two groups based on the degree of constraint used, using only one prosthetic model in each group (61 CCK vs 56 RHK). All implants were evaluated for a minimum of 10 years. Survival of both implants at the end of follow-up, free from revision for any cause, aseptic loosening, and septic cause was compared.

Results

Better results were seen with use of the RHK in joint ranges of (p = 0.023), KSCS (p = 0.015), KSFS (p = 0.043), and KOOS (p = 0.031). About 22.2% of the cases required repeat surgery (11.7% RHK vs 29.6% CCK, p = 0.023). Constrained condylar implants had a significantly lower survival rates than rotating hinge implants (p = 0.005), due to a higher aseptic loosening rate (p = 0.031).

Conclusion

Using a specific RHK design with less rotational constraint has better clinical and survival outcomes than implants with greater rotational constraint, such as one specific CCK.

The knee prosthesis constraint dilemma: Biomechanical comparison between varus-valgus constrained implants and rotating hinge prosthesis. A cadaver study

The real degree of constriction of rotating hinge knee (RHK) and condylar constrained prostheses (CCK) is a matter of discussion in revision knee arthroplasty. The objectives of this study are to compare the tibial rotation of both implants and validate the use of inertial sensors with optical tracking system as movement measurement tools. A total of 16 cadaver knees were used. Eight knees were replaced using a RHK (Endomodel LINK), and the remaining eight received a CCK prosthesis (LCCK, Zimmer). Tibial rotation range of motion was measured in full extension and at 30°, 60°, and 90° of flexion, with four continuous waveforms for each measurement. Measurements were made using two inertial sensors with specific software and compared with measurements obtained using the gold standard technique - the motion capture camera. The comparison of the accuracy of both measurement methods showed no statistically significant differences between inertial sensors and motion capture cameras, with p > .1; the mean error for tibial rotation was 0.21°. Tibial rotation in the RHK was significantly greater than in the CCK (5.25° vs. 2.28°, respectively), p < .05. We have shown that RHK permit greater tibial rotation, being closer to physiological values than CCKs. Inertial sensors have been validated as an effective and accurate method of measuring knee movement. The clinical significance: RHK appears to represent a lower constriction degree than CCK systems.

Hot spots and trends in knee revision research since the 21st century: a bibliometric analysis

Background

With the popularization of knee replacement surgery in the treatment of the advanced lesions of knee joint, the amount of knee revision surgery is increasing unceasingly. Meanwhile, the continuous introduction of new clinical concepts and new technology poses a challenge to researchers and surgeons. Our study aims to inform the future scientific research and clinical treatment, by investigating the hot spots and trends of the knee revision research field with the method of bibliometric analysis.

Methods

Publications on knee revision included in the database of Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC) between 2000 and 2018 were reviewed and MeSH terms of them were extracted from PubMed. Online bibliometric analysis website (http://bibliometric.com/), two pieces of software called “CiteSpace” and “Bibliographic Item Co-Occurrence Matrix Builder” (BICOMB) were used to analyze the publications reviewed at quantitative level. Another piece of software called “gCLUTO”, was used to investigate the hot spots with visualization techniques at qualitative level.

Results

A total of 906 publications were retrieved between 2000 and 2018. There is an increasing number of publications, from 15 in 2000 to 86 in 2018. Journal of Arthroplasty is the leading journal which has the most publications on knee revision. The United States has been the biggest contributor. Mayo Clinic became the leader among the institutions which have conducted correlational researches. David G. Lewallen, Robert L. Barrack and Michael A. Mont should be regarded as the scholars who have made outstanding contribution. Hot spots were summed up in six clusters, respectively, the solutions for infection, prostheses, the adverse effects, the surgical techniques, epidemiological characters, and the pathophysiology of the revision knee.

Conclusions

We found a growing trend in knee revision research and extracted the most contributive researchers, institutions, countries, journals, and most-cited articles worldwide. The solutions for complications, surgical applications and analysis for epidemiological characters have been the hot spots. Multi-disciplinary integration is becoming the time-trend of hot spots. Minimally invasive and navigation are directions of revision surgery. They together constitute a solid foundation and set up a fingerpost for the future scientific research and clinical treatment.

Analysis of Biomechanical Differences Between Condylar Constrained Knee and Rotating Hinged Implants: A Numerical Study

BACKGROUND

Different levels of constraint for total knee arthroplasty can be considered for revision surgeries. While prior studies have assessed the clinical impact and patient outcomes of condylar constrained knee (CCK) and rotating hinged (RTH) implants, nowadays little is known about the biomechanical effects induced by different levels of constraint on bone stress and implant micromotions.

METHODS

CCK and RTH implant models were analyzed using a previously validated numerical model. Each system was investigated during a squat and a lunge motor task. The force in the joint, the bone and implant stresses, and micromotions in this latter were analyzed and compared among designs.

RESULTS

Different activities induced similar bone stress distributions in both implants. The RTH implant induces mostly high stress compared to the CCK implant, especially in the region close to tip of the stem. However, in the proximal tibia, the stresses achieved with the CCK implant is higher than the one calculated for the RTH design, due to the presence of the post-cam system. Accordingly, the condylar constrained design shows higher implant micromotions due to the greater torsional constraint.

CONCLUSION

Different levels of constraint in revision arthroplasty were always associated with different biomechanical outputs. RTH implants are characterized by higher tibial stress especially in the region close to the stem tip; condylar implants, instead, increase the proximal tibial stress and therefore implant micromotions, as a result of the presence of the post-cam mechanism. Surgeons will have to consider these findings to guarantee the best outcome for the patient and the related change in the bone stress and implant fixation induced by different levels of constrain in a total knee arthroplasty.

Rotating hinge knee versus constrained condylar knee in revision total knee arthroplasty: A meta-analysis

There is debate in the literature whether rotating hinge knee (RHK) or constrained condylar knee (CCK) prostheses lead to better clinical outcomes and survival rates in patients undergoing revision total knee arthroplasty (RTKA). The purpose of this meta-analysis is to compare the survivorship and clinical outcomes of RHK and CCK prostheses. In this meta-analysis, we reviewed studies that evaluated pain and function scores, range of motion (ROM), complications, and survival rates in patients treated with RHK or CCK with short-term (<5 years) or midterm (5-10 years) follow-up. The survivorship was considered as the time to additional surgical intervention such as removal or revision of the components. A total of 12 studies (one randomized study and 11 non-randomized studies) met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed in detail. The proportion of the knees in which short-term (<5 years) survival rates (RHK, 83/95; CCK, 111/148; odds ratio [OR] 0.52; 95% CI, 0.24-1.11; P = 0.09) and midterm (5-10 years) survival rates (RHK, 104/128; CCK, 196/234; OR 1.05; 95% CI, 0.56-1.97; P = 0.88) were evaluated did not differ significantly between RHK and CCK prostheses. In addition, there were no significant differences in ROM (95% CI: -0.40 to 9.93; P = 0.07) and complication rates (95% CI: 0.66 to 2.49; P = 0.46). In contrast, CCK groups reported significantly better pain score (95% CI: 0.50 to 2.73; P = 0.005) and function score (95% CI: 0.01 to 2.00; P = 0.05) than RHK groups. This meta-analysis revealed that 87.4% of RHK and 75.0% of CCK prostheses survive at short-term (<5 years), while 81.3% of RHK and 83.8% of CCK prostheses survive at midterm (5-10 years). The differences in standardized mean pain and function scores we detected were likely to be imperceptible to patients and almost certainly below the minimum clinically important level, despite a significant difference in both groups. Based on the findings of the current meta-analysis, RHK prostheses continue to be an option in complex RTKA with reasonable midterm survivorship.