Cargando…

Bone Defects in Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty and Management

This article reviews the recent updates in revision of total knee arthroplasty (RTKA). We reviewed the recent articles on RTKA in databases including PubMed, Google Scholar, and SCOPUS. Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) involves the replacement of all three compartments of the knee in surgery of the kne...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lei, Peng‐fei, Hu, Ru‐yin, Hu, Yi‐he
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6430493/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30809942
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/os.12425
_version_ 1783405782898835456
author Lei, Peng‐fei
Hu, Ru‐yin
Hu, Yi‐he
author_facet Lei, Peng‐fei
Hu, Ru‐yin
Hu, Yi‐he
author_sort Lei, Peng‐fei
collection PubMed
description This article reviews the recent updates in revision of total knee arthroplasty (RTKA). We reviewed the recent articles on RTKA in databases including PubMed, Google Scholar, and SCOPUS. Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) involves the replacement of all three compartments of the knee in surgery of the knee joint to restore capacity and function. TKA is one of the most common and reliable surgical treatment options for the treatment of knee diseases. However, some patients require revision of TKA (RTKA) after primary TKA for various reasons, including mechanical wear, implant loosening or breakage, malalignment, infection, instability, periprosthetic fracture, and persistent stiffness. Unfortunately, the overall outcome of RTKA is not as satisfactory as for primary TKA due to the uncertainty regarding the actual success rate and the risk factors for failure. Cementation, modular metal augmentation, bone grafting, autologous bone grafting, allogenic bone grafting, impactation bone grafting, structural bone allografting, metaphyseal fixation, using porous titanium coated press fit metaphyseal sleeves and porous tantalum structural cones, and megaprostheses or customized prostheses are the currently available management options for RTKA. However, most of the management systems possess specific complications. Novel approaches should be developed to improve functional capacity, implant survival rates, and quality of life in a cost‐efficient manner.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6430493
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-64304932019-09-10 Bone Defects in Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty and Management Lei, Peng‐fei Hu, Ru‐yin Hu, Yi‐he Orthop Surg Review Articles This article reviews the recent updates in revision of total knee arthroplasty (RTKA). We reviewed the recent articles on RTKA in databases including PubMed, Google Scholar, and SCOPUS. Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) involves the replacement of all three compartments of the knee in surgery of the knee joint to restore capacity and function. TKA is one of the most common and reliable surgical treatment options for the treatment of knee diseases. However, some patients require revision of TKA (RTKA) after primary TKA for various reasons, including mechanical wear, implant loosening or breakage, malalignment, infection, instability, periprosthetic fracture, and persistent stiffness. Unfortunately, the overall outcome of RTKA is not as satisfactory as for primary TKA due to the uncertainty regarding the actual success rate and the risk factors for failure. Cementation, modular metal augmentation, bone grafting, autologous bone grafting, allogenic bone grafting, impactation bone grafting, structural bone allografting, metaphyseal fixation, using porous titanium coated press fit metaphyseal sleeves and porous tantalum structural cones, and megaprostheses or customized prostheses are the currently available management options for RTKA. However, most of the management systems possess specific complications. Novel approaches should be developed to improve functional capacity, implant survival rates, and quality of life in a cost‐efficient manner. John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd 2019-02-27 /pmc/articles/PMC6430493/ /pubmed/30809942 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/os.12425 Text en © 2019 The Authors. Orthopaedic Surgery published by Chinese Orthopaedic Association and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Review Articles
Lei, Peng‐fei
Hu, Ru‐yin
Hu, Yi‐he
Bone Defects in Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty and Management
title Bone Defects in Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty and Management
title_full Bone Defects in Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty and Management
title_fullStr Bone Defects in Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty and Management
title_full_unstemmed Bone Defects in Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty and Management
title_short Bone Defects in Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty and Management
title_sort bone defects in revision total knee arthroplasty and management
topic Review Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6430493/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30809942
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/os.12425
work_keys_str_mv AT leipengfei bonedefectsinrevisiontotalkneearthroplastyandmanagement
AT huruyin bonedefectsinrevisiontotalkneearthroplastyandmanagement
AT huyihe bonedefectsinrevisiontotalkneearthroplastyandmanagement