Previous studies of failure mechanisms leading
to revision total knee replacement (TKR) performed between 1986 and
2000 determined that many failed early, with a disproportionate
amount accounted for by infection and implant-associated factors
including wear, loosening and instability. Since then, efforts have
been made to improve implant performance and instruct surgeons in
best practice. Recently our centre participated in a multi-centre evaluation
of 844 revision TKRs from 2010 to 2011. The purpose was to report
a detailed analysis of failure mechanisms over time and to see if
failure modes have changed over the past 10 to 15 years. Aseptic
loosening was the predominant mechanism of failure (31.2%), followed
by instability (18.7%), infection (16.2%), polyethylene wear (10.0%),
arthrofibrosis (6.9%) and malalignment (6.6%). The mean time to
failure was 5.9 years (ten days to 31 years), 35.3% of all revisions
occurred at less than two years, and 60.2% in the first five years.
With improvements in implant and polyethylene manufacture, polyethylene
wear is no longer a leading cause of failure. Early mechanisms of
failure are primarily technical errors. In addition to improving
implant longevity, industry and surgeons must work together to decrease
these technical errors. All reports on failure of TKR contain patients
with unexplained pain who not infrequently have unmet expectations.
Surgeons must work to achieve realistic patient expectations pre-operatively,
and therefore, improve patient satisfaction post-operatively. Cite this article:
Debate has raged over whether a cruciate retaining
(CR) or a posterior stabilised (PS) total knee replacement (TKR) provides
a better range of movement (ROM) for patients. Various sub-sets
of CR design are frequently lumped together when comparing outcomes.
Additionally, multiple factors have been proven to influence the
rate of manipulation under anaesthetic (MUA) following TKR. The
purpose of this study was to determine whether different CR bearing
insert designs provide better ROM or different MUA rates. All primary
TKRs performed by two surgeons between March 2006 and March 2009
were reviewed and 2449 CR-TKRs were identified. The same CR femoral
component, instrumentation, and tibial base plate were consistently
used. In 1334 TKRs a CR tibial insert with 3° posterior slope and
no posterior lip was used (CR-S). In 803 there was an insert with
no slope and a small posterior lip (CR-L) and in 312 knees the posterior
cruciate ligament (PCL) was either resected or lax and a deep-dish,
anterior stabilised insert was used (CR-AS). More CR-AS inserts
were used in patients with less pre-operative ROM and greater pre-operative
tibiofemoral deformity and flexion contracture (p <
0.05). The
mean improvement in ROM was highest for the CR-AS inserts (5.9°
(-40° to 55°) Cite this article:
