PDF herunterladen
Z Orthop Unfall 2020; 158(04): 383-389
DOI: 10.1055/a-0896-2862
Review/Übersicht

Rotating Hinge Implants in Knee Arthroplasty

Fundamentals, Indication and Results in Primary and Revision Knee Arthroplasty Artikel in mehreren Sprachen: English | deutsch
Alexander Petershofer
1   Dept. of Orthopaedics, Klinikum Wels-Grieskirchen, Wels, Austria
,
Klemens Trieb
2   University of Applied Sciences Upper Austria, Wels, Austria
› Institutsangaben
› Weitere Informationen
Auch verfügbar auf
    Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Due to demographic transition an increasing number of primary knee arthroplasty is expected. A consequence is a rise in frequency in revision knee arthroplasty. Rotating hinge prostheses are a development of former hinge prostheses, due to changes in implant design the outcome of modern rotating hinge implants clearly improved in comparison to former models. Interpretation of outcome in present literature is difficult due to the small number of cases and the heterogeneous indications. Nevertheless the use of rotating hinge knee prostheses in primary and revision arthroplasty is associated with good clinical outcomes, when indicated appropriately.

Key words

knee arthroplasty - hinged - revision


Publikationsverlauf

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
12. August 2019

© 2020. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Stuttgart · New York

 

  • References/Literatur

  • 1 IQTIG – Institut für Qualitätssicherung und Transparenz im Gesundheitswesen. Hrsg. Bundesauswertung zum Erfassungsjahr 2016. Knieprothesenversorgung: Qualitätsindikatoren. Stand 12.07.2017. Im Internet (Stand: 03.04.2019): https://iqtig.org/downloads/auswertung/2016/kep/QSKH_KEP_2016_BUAW_V02_2017-07-12.pdf
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 The Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Register. Annual Report 2017. Im Internet (Stand: 03.04.2019): http://www.myknee.se/en/publications/annual-reports
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Nemes S, Rolfson O, W-Dahl A. et al. Historical view and future demand for knee arthroplasty in Sweden. Acta Orthop 2015; 86: 426-431
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E. et al. Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007; 89: 780-785
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Pabinger C, Berghold A, Boehler N. et al. Revision rates after knee replacement. Cumulative results from worldwide clinical studies versus joint registers. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2013; 21: 263-268
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Sharkey PF, Lichstein PM, Shen C. et al. Why are total knee arthroplasties failing today–has anything changed after 10 years?. J Arthroplasty 2014; 29: 1774-1778
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Bieger R, Decking R, Reichel H. Kopplungsgrade. In: Trieb K, Heller K-D, Wirtz DC. Hrsg. Revisionsendoprothetik des Kniegelenks. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2011: 235-246
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Nelson CL, Gioe TJ, Cheng EY. et al. Implant selection in revision total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2003; 85: 43-51
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Müller LA, Forst R. Kriterien der Implantatauswahl. In: Trieb K, Heller K-D, Wirtz DC. Hrsg. Revisionsendoprothetik des Kniegelenks. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2011: 83-95
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Gaillard R, Lustig S, Peltier A. et al. Total knee implant posterior stabilised by a third condyle: design evolution and post-operative complications. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2016; 102: 1061-1068
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Noboru M, Fujii T, Mo JQ. et al. In vitro biomechanical evaluation of tri-condylar total knee arthroplasty with posterior release for restoration of full extension. J Orthop Translat 2017; 11: 1-6
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Samiezadeh S, Bougherara H, Abolghasemian M. et al. Rotating hinge knee causes lower bone-implant interface stress compared to constrained condylar knee replacement. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2019; 27: 1224-1231
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Ponzio DY, Austin MS. Metaphyseal bone loss in revision knee arthroplasty. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 2015; 8: 361-367
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Patel JV, Masonis JL, Guerin J. et al. The fate of augments to treat type-2 bone defects in revision knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2004; 86: 195-199
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Scott KL, Abdel MP, Hanssen AD. Metaphyseal Sleeves and Cones in Revision total Knee Arthroplasty. In: Bono JV, Scott RD. eds. Revision total Knee Arthroplasty. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2018: 131-141
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Morgan-Jones R, Oussedik SI, Graichen H. et al. Zonal fixation in revision total knee arthroplasty. Bone Joint J 2015; 97-B: 147-149
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Bonanzinga T, Gehrke T, Zahar A. et al. Are trabecular metal cones a valid option to treat metaphyseal bone defects in complex primary and revision knee arthroplasty?. Joints 2017; 6: 58-64
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Zanirato A, Cavagnaro L, Basso M. et al. Metaphyseal sleeves in total knee arthroplasty revision: complications, clinical and radiological results. A systematic review of the literature. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2018; 138: 993-1001
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Kang SG, Park CH, Song SJ. Stem fixation in revision total knee arthroplasty: indications, stem dimensions, and fixation methods. Knee Surg Relat Res 2018; 30: 187-192
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Brand MG, Daley RJ, Ewald FC. et al. Tibial tray augmentation with modular metal wedges for tibial bone stock deficiency. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1989; (248) 71-79
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Lachiewicz P, OʼDell J. Is there a difference between cemented and uncemented femoral stem extensions in revision knee arthroplasty?. J Knee Surg 2018; DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1676567.
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Wang C, Pfitzner T, von Roth P. et al. Fixation of stem in revision of total knee arthroplasty: cemented versus cementless–a meta-analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2016; 24: 3200-3211
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Abraham R, Malkani AL, Lewis J. et al. An anatomical study of tibial metaphyseal/diaphyseal mismatch during revision total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2007; 22: 241-244
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Randau T, Wirtz DC. Tibiale und femorale Offset-Rekonstruktion. In: Trieb K, Heller K-D, Wirtz DC. Hrsg. Revisionsendoprothetik des Kniegelenks. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2011: 227-233
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Baldini A, Balato G, Franceschini V. The role of offset stems in revision knee arthroplasty. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 2015; 8: 383-389
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Innocenti M, Matassi F, Carulli C. et al. Joint line position in revision total knee arthroplasty: the role of posterior femoral off-set stems. Knee 2013; 20: 447-450
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Brilhault JM, Ries MD. Influence of offset stem couplers in femoral revision knee arthroplasty: a radiographic study. Knee 2012; 19: 112-115
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Madanat R, Schroder SJ, Freiberg AA. Hinge Implants. In: Bono JV, Scott RD. eds. Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2018: 315-340
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Kouk S, Rathod PA, Maheshwari AV. et al. Rotating hinge prosthesis for complex revision total knee arthroplasty: A review of the literature. J Clin Orthop Trauma 2018; 9: 29-33
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Cottino U, Abdel MP, Perry KI. et al. Long-term results after total knee arthroplasty with contemporary rotating-hinge prostheses. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2017; 99: 324-330
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Hossain F, Patel S, Haddad FS. Midterm assessment of causes and results of revision total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010; 468: 1221-1228
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Farid YR, Thakral R, Finn HA. Intermediate-term results of 142 single-design, rotating-hinge implants: frequent complications may not preclude salvage of severely affected knees. J Arthroplasty 2015; 30: 2173-2180
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Vasso M, Beaufils P, Schiavone Panni A. Constraint choice in revision knee arthroplasty. Int Orthop 2013; 37: 1279-1284
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar