Download PDF
Z Orthop Unfall 2014; 152(2): 189-202
DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1368226
Refresher Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Diagnostischer Algorithmus der schmerzhaften Knietotalendoprothese

B. Fink
1   Orthopädische Klinik Markgröningen
,
R. Lass
2   Universitätsklinik für Orthopädie, Medizinische Universität Wien
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
23 April 2014 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung

Die Implantation von Knietotalendoprothesen (KTEP) gehört zu den häufigsten Operationen in der Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie. Der klinische Erfolg dieser Operationen kann anhand der Standzeiten der Endoprothesen, der Funktionsverbesserung, aber natürlich auch über die Zufriedenheit der Patienten und deren Schmerzen gemessen werden. Trotz des klinischen Erfolgs der Knietotalendoprothetik mit 10-Jahres-Überlebensraten von bis zu 95 % sind etwa 20 % der Patienten mit ihren Prothesen aus verschiedenen Gründen unzufrieden. Eindeutige Ursachen für ein Implantatversagen sind meist mithilfe der klinischen Diagnostik und einer Standardröntgenuntersuchung zu identifizieren, wogegen die unklare schmerzhafte Knietotalendoprothese nach wie vor eine Herausforderung für den Chirurgen darstellt. Hier ist zwischen extra- und intraartikulären Schmerzen zu differenzieren, wobei Letztere eine biologische oder eine mechanische Ursache haben können. Um zwischen mechanisch und nicht mechanisch bedingten Schmerzen zu unterscheiden, sind der Beginn der Schmerzen nach der Operation und das Auftreten bei Bewegung oder in Ruhe wegweisend. Grundsätzlich gilt ein schmerzhaftes Kniegelenk bis zum Beweis des Gegenteils verdächtig für einen periprothetischen Infekt. Es ist wichtig zu betonen, dass schmerzhafte Knietotalendoprothesen, bei denen keine Ursache identifiziert werden kann, nicht einer Revisionsoperation zugeführt werden sollten. Methode: In dieser Übersichtsarbeit wird ein diagnostischer Algorithmus beschrieben, der eine detaillierte Analyse von schmerzhaften Knietotalendoprothesen erlaubt. Die Analyse beinhaltet eine genaue Anamnese mit einer ausführlichen Schmerzanamnese, eine sorgfältige klinische Untersuchung des betroffenen Knies und der angrenzenden Gelenke wie der Wirbelsäule, der Hüfte und der Sprunggelenke, eine Labor- und radiologische Analyse sowie weiterführende invasive Untersuchungsmethoden wie Gelenkspunktionen und Biopsien. Schlussfolgerung: Diese Übersichtsarbeit bietet dem Leser mithilfe eines diagnostischen Algorithmus eine wichtige Unterstützung zur Abklärung der Ursache von schmerzhaften Knietotalendoprothesen.

Abstract

Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is one of the most common procedures in orthopedic surgery and clinical success can be characterized by the revision rate and improvement of function, as well as the patientsʼ satisfaction and pain. Despite the clinical success of primary TKA with 10-year survival rates as high as 95 %, about 20 % of the patients after TKA are not completely satisfied with their outcomes for several reasons. Obvious causes of failure might be identified with clinical examinations and standard radiographs only, whereas the unexplained painful TKA still remains a challenge for the surgeon. Failure can be classified into extra- and intraarticular disorders, the latter being divided into biological and mechanical origins. The onset of the pain after the operation and the differentiation between pain in motion and at rest are helpful to distinguish between mechanical and non-mechanical problems. An infection should be the first diagnosis to be ruled out in a painful TKA. It is generally accepted that a clear understanding of the failure mechanism in each case is required prior to considering revision surgery. Method: In this review a practical diagnostic algorithm is described for failure analysis in more detail. The evaluation of a painful TKA includes a detailed history with an extended analysis of the type of pain, thorough clinical examination including spine, hip and ankle, radiographic and laboratory analysis, as well as invasive examinations like joint aspiration and biopsies. Conclusion: This diagnostic algorithm offers an important tool for a sufficient failure analysis in almost all patients with painful TKA.

Key words

Knietotalendoprothetik - Schmerzen - Implantatversagen - Diagnostik

Key words

total knee arthroplasty - pain - failure in knee arthroplasty - diagnostic algorithm
 

  • Literatur

  • 1 Learmonth ID, Young C, Rorabeck C. The operation of the century: total hip replacement. Lancet 2007; 370: 1508-1519
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Robertsson O, Dunbar M, Pehrsson T et al. Patient satisfaction after knee arthroplasty: a report on 27,372 knees operated on between 1981 and 1995 in Sweden. Acta Orthop Scand 2000; 71: 262-267
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Baker PN, van der Meulen JH, Lewsey J et al. The role of pain and function in determining patient satisfaction after total knee replacement. Data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2007; 89: 893-900
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Bourne RB, Chesworth BM, Davis AM et al. Patient satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty: who is satisfied and who is not?. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010; 468: 57-63
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Price AJ, Longino D, Rees J et al. Are pain and function better measures of outcome than revision rates after TKR in the younger patient?. Knee 2010; 17: 196-199
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Lutzner J, Hubel U, Kirschner S et al. Langzeitergebnisse in der Knieendoprothetik. Chirurg 2011; 82: 618-624
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Polkowski II GG, Ruh EL, Barrack TN et al. Is pain and dissatisfaction after TKA related to early-grade preoperative osteoarthritis?. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2013; 471: 162-168
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Brown 3rd EC, Clarke HD, Scuderi GR. The painful total knee arthroplasty: diagnosis and management. Orthopedics 2006; 29: 129-136 quiz 137–138
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Beight JL, Yao B, Hozack WJ et al. The patellar “clunk” syndrome after posterior stabilized total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1994; 299: 139-142
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Ewald FC. The Knee Society total knee arthroplasty roentgenographic evaluation and scoring system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1989; 248: 9-12
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Marx A, Saxler G, Landgraeber S et al. Comparison of subtraction arthrography, radionuclide arthrography and conventional plain radiography to assess loosening of total knee arthroplasty. Biomed Tech (Berlin) 2005; 50: 143-147
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Berger RA, Crossett LS, Jacobs JJ et al. Malrotation causing patellofemoral complications after total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1998; 356: 144-153
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Miller MC, Berger RA, Petrella AJ et al. Optimizing femoral component rotation in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2001; 392: 38-45
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Duus BR, Boeckstyns M, Kjaer L et al. Radionuclide scanning after total knee replacement: correlation with pain and radiolucent lines. A prospective study. Invest Radiol 1987; 22: 891-894
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Rosenthall L, Lepanto L, Raymond F. Radiophosphate uptake in asymptomatic knee arthroplasty. J Nucl Med 1987; 28: 1546-1549
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Smith SL, Wastie ML, Forster I. Radionuclide bone scintigraphy in the detection of significant complications after total knee joint replacement. Clin Radiol 2001; 56: 221-224
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Ahmad R, Kumar GS, Katam K et al. Significance of a “hot patella” in total knee replacement without primary patellar resurfacing. Knee 2009; 16: 337-340
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Parvizi J, Della Valle CJ. AAOS Clinical Practice Guideline: diagnosis and treatment of periprosthetic joint infections of the hip and knee. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2010; 18: 771-772
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Fink B, Makowiak C, Fuerst M et al. The value of synovial biopsy, joint aspiration and C-reactive protein in the diagnosis of late peri-prosthetic infection of total knee replacements. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2008; 90: 874-878
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Barrack RL, Jennings RW, Wolfe MW et al. The Coventry Award. The value of preoperative aspiration before total knee revision. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1997; 345: 8-16
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Barrack RL. The value of preoperative knee aspiration: donʼt ask, donʼt tell. Orthopedics 1997; 20: 862-864
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Levitsky KA, Hozack WJ, Balderston RA et al. Evaluation of the painful prosthetic joint. Relative value of bone scan, sedimentation rate, and joint aspiration. J Arthroplast 1991; 6: 237-244
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Saleh KJ, Clark CR, Sharkey PF et al. Modes of failure and preoperative evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2003; 85-A (Suppl. 01) S21-S25
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Duff GP, Lachiewicz PF, Kelley SS. Aspiration of the knee joint before revision arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1996; 331: 132-139
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Mont MA, Waldman BJ, Hungerford DS. Evaluation of preoperative cultures before second-stage reimplantation of a total knee prosthesis complicated by infection. A comparison-group study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2000; 82-A: 1552-1557
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Gollwitzer H, Diehl P, Gerdesmeyer L et al. Diagnostische Strategien bei Verdacht auf periprothetische Infektion einer Kniegelenktotalendoprothese. Orthopäde 2006; 35: 904-916
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Ince A, Rupp J, Frommelt L et al. Is “aseptic” loosening of the prosthetic cup after total hip replacement due to nonculturable bacterial pathogens in patients with low-grade infection?. Clin Infect Dis 2004; 39: 1599-1603
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Schafer P, Fink B, Sandow D et al. Prolonged bacterial culture to identify late periprosthetic joint infection: a promising strategy. Clin Infect Dis 2008; 47: 1403-1409
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Steinbrink K, Frommelt L. Behandlung der periprothetischen Infektion der Hüfte durch einzeitige Austauschoperation. Orthopäde 1995; 24: 335-343
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Costerton JW. Biofilm theory can guide the treatment of device-related orthopaedic infections. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2005; 437: 7-11
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Gallo J, Kolar M, Novotny R et al. Pathogenesis of prosthesis-related infection. Biomed Pap Med Fac Univ Palacky Olomouc Czech Repub 2003; 147: 27-35
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Neut D, van Horn JR, van Kooten TG et al. Detection of biomaterial-associated infections in orthopaedic joint implants. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2003; 413: 261-268
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Peters W. Changing pattern of antimalarial drug resistance. J R Soc Med 1989; 82 (Suppl. 17) 14-17
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Ali F, Wilkinson JM, Cooper JR et al. Accuracy of joint aspiration for the preoperative diagnosis of infection in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2006; 21: 221-226
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Williams JL, Norman P, Stockley I. The value of hip aspiration versus tissue biopsy in diagnosing infection before exchange hip arthroplasty surgery. J Arthroplast 2004; 19: 582-586
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Fürst M, Fink B, Rüther W. [The value of preoperative knee aspiration and arthroscopic biopsy in revision total knee arthroplasty]. Z Orthop Grenzgeb 2005; 143: 36-41
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Hofmann AA, Goldberg TD, Tanner AM et al. Ten-year experience using an articulating antibiotic cement hip spacer for the treatment of chronically infected total hip. J Arthroplast 2005; 20: 874-879
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Morrey BF, Westholm F, Schoifet S et al. Long-term results of various treatment options for infected total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1989; 248: 120-128
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Kordelle J, Klett R, Stahl U et al. [Infection diagnosis after knee-TEP-implantation]. Z Orthop Grenzgeb 2004; 142: 337-343
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Atkins BL, Athanasou N, Deeks JJ et al. Prospective evaluation of criteria for microbiological diagnosis of prosthetic-joint infection at revision arthroplasty. The OSIRIS Collaborative Study Group. J Clin Microbiol 1998; 36: 2932-2939
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Virolainen P, Lahteenmaki H, Hiltunen A et al. The reliability of diagnosis of infection during revision arthroplasties. Scand J Surg 2002; 91: 178-181
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Pandey R, Drakoulakis E, Athanasou NA. An assessment of the histological criteria used to diagnose infection in hip revision arthroplasty tissues. J Clin Pathol 1999; 52: 118-123
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Mirra JM, Marder RA, Amstutz HC. The pathology of failed total joint arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1982; 170: 175-183
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Feldman DS, Lonner JH, Desai P et al. The role of intraoperative frozen sections in revision total joint arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1995; 77: 1807-1813
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Lonner JH, Desai P, Dicesare PE et al. The reliability of analysis of intraoperative frozen sections for identifying active infection during revision hip or knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1996; 78: 1553-1558
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Tsukayama DT, Goldberg VM, Kyle R. Diagnosis and management of infection after total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2003; 85-A (Suppl. 01) S75-S80
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Mont MA, Serna FK, Krackow KA et al. Exploration of radiographically normal total knee replacements for unexplained pain. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1996; 331: 216-220
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Glithero PR, Grigoris P, Harding LK et al. White cell scans and infected joint replacements. Failure to detect chronic infection. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1993; 75: 371-374
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Panousis K, Grigoris P, Butcher I et al. Poor predictive value of broad-range PCR for the detection of arthroplasty infection in 92 cases. Acta Orthop 2005; 76: 341-346
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Teller RE, Christie MJ, Martin W et al. Sequential indium-labeled leukocyte and bone scans to diagnose prosthetic joint infection. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2000; 373: 241-247
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar