Volume 7, 2021
|Number of page(s)||8|
|Published online||10 September 2021|
Condylar constrained knee prosthesis and rotating hinge prosthesis for revision total knee arthroplasty for mechanical failure have not the same indications and same results
FIFA Medical Center of Excellence, Orthopaedics Surgery and Sports Medicine Department, Croix-Rousse Hospital, Hospices Civils de Lyon, 103 grande rue de la croix rousse, 69004 Lyon, France
2 LIBM – EA 7424, Interuniversity Laboratory of Biology of Mobility, Claude Bernard Lyon 1 University, 29 Boulevard du 11 Novembre 1918, Lyon, France
3 Univ Lyon, Claude Bernard Lyon 1 University, IFSTTAR, LBMC UMR_T9406, 25 Avenue François Mitterand, Lyon, France
* Corresponding author: firstname.lastname@example.org
Accepted: 11 August 2021
Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate whether there are any differences in outcomes and complication rates between condylar constrained knee (CCK) and rotating hinge knee (RHK) prostheses used for the first revision of total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) after mechanical failure. Methods: Sixty-three consecutive non-septic revisions of posterior stabilized implants using 33 CCK and 30 RHK prostheses were included. Clinical evaluation and revision rate were compared between the two groups at two years minimum follow-up. Results: The CCK group had significantly better clinical outcomes and satisfaction rates compared to patients with RHK (KSS-knee 70.5 versus 60.7 (p < 0.003) and KSS-function 74.9 versus 47.7 (p < 0.004) at 3.7 (2.0–9.4) years mean follow-up. Moreover, the clinical improvement was significantly higher for the CCK group concerning the KSS-Knee (+23.9 vs. +15.2 points, p = 0.03). The postoperative flexion was significantly better in the CCK group compared to the RHK group (115° vs. 103°, p = 0.01). The prosthesis-related complications and the re-revision rate were higher in the RHK group, especially due to patellofemoral complications and mechanical failures. Conclusions: CCK prostheses provided better clinical and functional outcomes and fewer complications than RHK prostheses when used for the first non-septic rTKA. CCK is a safe and effective implant for selected patients, while RHK should be used with caution as a salvage device for complex knee conditions, with particular attention to the balance of the extensor mechanism.
Key words: Total knee arthroplasty / Condylar constrained knee prosthesis / Rotating hinge knee prosthesis / Clinical outcomes / Satisfaction
© The Authors, published by EDP Sciences, 2021
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.
Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.
Initial download of the metrics may take a while.