Advertisement

Der Orthopäde

, Volume 45, Issue 1, pp 38–46 | Cite as

Berliner diagnostischer Algorithmus der schmerzhaften Knie-TEP

  • K. ThieleEmail author
  • J. Fussi
  • C. Perka
  • T. Pfitzner
Leitthema

Zusammenfassung

Hintergrund

Nach knieendoprothetischer Versorgung sind ca. 20 % der Patienten mit dem postoperativen Ergebnis unzufrieden. Hauptursachen hierfür sind die periprothetische Infektion, die aseptische Lockerung, Instabilität, Malalignment und in selteneren Fällen die sekundäre Retropatellararthrose, periprothetische Frakturen, Streckapparatinsuffizienzen, Polyethylenabrieb und die Arthrofibrose. Die Identifikation der Schmerzursache ist dabei häufig schwierig, jedoch Voraussetzung für eine erfolgreiche Therapie.

Fragestellung

Ziel dieser Arbeit ist es, durch einen reproduzierbaren diagnostischen Algorithmus eine effiziente Analyse der schmerzhaften Knieendoprothese (Knie-TEP) zu erreichen.

Diskussion

Grundlegende Bausteine sind die Anamnese mit den Kernfragen nach Nacht- oder Ruheschmerz sowie dem zeitlichen Verlauf des Schmerzcharakters. Daran sollte sich die Basisdiagnostik mit klinischer, radiologischer und infektiologischer Untersuchung anschließen. Eindeutige Versagensursachen, wie eine Infektion oder aseptische Lockerung, lassen sich hierdurch in den überwiegenden Fällen diagnostizieren. Ist die Schmerzursache mit der Basisdiagnostik nicht eindeutig zuordenbar, ist die weiterführende infektiologische oder bildgebende Diagnostik notwendig. Bei unklaren Befundergebnissen sind seltenere Ursachen der Beschwerden wie extraartikuläre Schmerzursachen, Kausalgien oder die Arthrofibrose zu bedenken. Kann trotz dieser Maßnahmen keine eindeutige Ursache objektiviert werden, ist eine Revision nicht indiziert, sondern die Reevaluation im zeitlichen Verlauf.

Schlüsselwörter

Algorithmus Gelenkinstabilität Infektion Knieendoprothese Schmerz 

The Berlin diagnostic algorithm for painful knee TKA

Abstract

Background

Approximately 20 % of patients are unsatisfied with their postoperative results after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Main causes for revision surgery are periprosthetic infection, aseptic loosing, instability and malalignment. In rare cases secondary progression of osteoarthritis of the patella, periprosthetic fractures, extensor mechanism insufficiency, polyethylene wear and arthrofibrosis can cause the necessity for a reintervention.  Identifying the reason for a painful knee arthroplasty can be very difficult, but is a prerequisite for a successful therapy.

Aim

The aim of this article is to provide an efficient analysis of the painful TKA by using a reproducible algorithm.

Discussion

Basic building blocks are the medical history with the core issues of pain character and the time curve of pain concerning surgery. This is followed by the basic diagnostics, including clinical, radiological, and infectiological investigations. Unique failures like periprosthetic infection or aseptic loosening can thereby be diagnosed in the majority of cases. If the cause of pain is not clearly attributable using the basic diagnostics tool, further infectiological investigation or diagnostic imaging are necessary. If the findings are inconsistent, uncommon causes of symptoms, such as extra-articular pathologies, causalgia or arthrofibrosis, have to be considered. In cases of ongoing unexplained pain, a revision is not indicated. These patients should be re-evaluated after a period of time.

Keywords

Algorithms Joint instability Infection Knee arthroplasty Pain 

Notes

Einhaltung ethischer Richtlinien

Interessenkonflikt

K. Thiele, J. Fussi, C. Perka und T. Pfitzner geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Es liegt eine retrospektive Studie vor mit Vorlage eine Ethikvotums. Die Nachuntersuchungen sind jedoch alle im Rahmen der normalen Nachuntersuchungen erfolgt, so dass keine explizite Vorlage einer Patienteneinwilligung notwendig war bzw. gefordert war.

Alle beschriebenen Untersuchungen am Menschen wurden mit Zustimmung der zuständigen Ethik-Kommission, im Einklang mit nationalem Recht sowie gemäß der Deklaration von Helsinki von 1975 (in der aktuellen, überarbeiteten Fassung) durchgeführt. Von allen beteiligten Patienten liegt eine Einverständniserklärung vor.

Literatur

  1. 1.
    Carr AJ, Robertsson O, Graves S, Price AJ, Arden NK, Judge A, Beard DJ (2012) Knee replacement. Lancet 379(9823):1331–1340PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kurtz SM et al (2007) Future clinical and economic impact of revision total hip and knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89(Suppl 3):144–151PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sharkey PF, Hozack WJ, Rothman RH, Shastri S, Jacoby SM (2002) Insall Award paper. Why are total knee arthroplasties failing today? Clin Orthop Relat Res (404):7–13Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Thiele K, Perka C, Matziolis G, Mayr HO, Sostheim M, Hube R (2015) Current failure mechanisms after knee arthroplasty have changed: polyethylene wear is less common in revision surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am 97(9):715–720PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Winkler T, Trampuz A, Hardt S, Janz V, Kleber C, Perka C (2014) [Periprosthetic infection after hip arthroplasty]. Orthopade 43(1):70–78PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dexel J, Kirschner S, Gunther KP, Lutzner J (2014) Agreement between radiological and computer navigation measurement of lower limb alignment. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 22(11):2721–2727PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hauschild O, Konstantinidis L, Baumann T, Niemeyer P, Suedkamp NP, Helwig P (2010) Correlation of radiographic and navigated measurements of TKA limb alignment: a matter of time? Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 18(10):1317–1322PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Johnson SM, Saint John BE, Dine AP (2008) Local anesthetics as antimicrobial agents: a review. Surg Infect (Larchmt) 9(2):205–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schafer P, Fink B, Sandow D, Margull A, Berger I, Frommelt L (2008) Prolonged bacterial culture to identify late periprosthetic joint infection: a promising strategy. Clin Infect Dis 47(11):1403–1409PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Morgan PM, Sharkey P, Ghanem E, Parvizi J, Clohisy JC, Burnett RS, Barrack RL (2009) The value of intraoperative Gram stain in revision total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 91(9):2124–2129PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Trampuz A, Perka C, Borens O (2013) [Prosthetic joint infection: new developments in diagnosis and treatment]. Dtsch Med Wochenschr 138(31–32):1571–1573PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Berger RA, Crossett LS, Jacobs JJ, Rubash HE (1998) Malrotation causing patellofemoral complications after total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res (356):144–153Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rasouli MR, Harandi AA, Adeli B, Purtill JJ, Parvizi J (2012) Revision total knee arthroplasty: infection should be ruled out in all cases. J Arthroplasty 27(6):1239–1243 e1–2PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zmistowski B, Karam JA, Durinka JB, Casper DS, Parvizi J (2013) Periprosthetic joint infection increases the risk of one-year mortality. J Bone Joint Surg Am 95(24):2177–2184PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Berend KR, Lombardi AV Jr, Morris MJ, Bergeson AG, Adams JB, Sneller MA (2013) Two-stage treatment of hip periprosthetic joint infection is associated with a high rate of infection control but high mortality. Clin Orthop Relat Res 471(2):510–518PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Parvizi J et al (2011) New definition for periprosthetic joint infection: from the Workgroup of the Musculoskeletal Infection Society. Clin Orthop Relat Res 469(11):2992–2994PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Krenn V et al (2014) Revised histopathological consensus classification of joint implant related pathology. Pathol Res Pract 210(12):779–786PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Muller M, Morawietz L, Hasart O, Strube P, Perka C, Tohtz S (2009) [Histopathological diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection following total hip arthroplasty: use of a standardized classification system of the periprosthetic interface membrane]. Orthopade 38(11):1087–1096PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Aggarwal VK, Higuera C, Deirmengian G, Parvizi J, Austin MS (2013) Swab cultures are not as effective as tissue cultures for diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection. Clin Orthop Relat Res 471(10):3196–3203PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Trampuz A et al (2007) Sonication of removed hip and knee prostheses for diagnosis of infection. N Engl J Med 357(7):654–663PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Yue B, Tang T (2015) The use of nuclear imaging for the diagnosis of periprosthetic infection after knee and hip arthroplasties. Nucl Med Commun 36(4):305–311PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Palestro CJ (2014) Nuclear medicine and the failed joint replacement: past, present, and future. World J Radiol 6(7):446–458PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Jacovides CL, Kreft R, Adeli B, Hozack B, Ehrlich GD, Parvizi J (2012) Successful identification of pathogens by polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based electron spray ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry (ESI-TOF-MS) in culture-negative periprosthetic joint infection. J Bone Joint Surg Am 94(24):2247–2254PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Deirmengian C, Kardos K, Kilmartin P, Cameron A, Schiller K, Parvizi J (2014) Diagnosing periprosthetic joint infection: has the era of the biomarker arrived? Clin Orthop Relat Res 472(11):3254–3262PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Dalury DF, Pomeroy DL, Gorab RS, Adams MJ (2013) Why are total knee arthroplasties being revised? J Arthroplasty 28(8 Suppl):120–121PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Schroer WC, Berend KR, Lombardi AV, Barnes CL, Bolognesi MP, Berend ME, Ritter MA, Nunley RM (2013) Why are total knees failing today? Etiology of total knee revision in 2010 and 2011. J Arthroplasty 28(8 Suppl):116–119PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Allen AM, Ward WG, Pope TL Jr (1995) Imaging of the total knee arthroplasty. Radiol Clin North Am 33(2):289–303PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ewald FC (1989) The Knee Society total knee arthroplasty roentgenographic evaluation and scoring system. Clin Orthop Relat Res (248):9–12Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Math KR, Zaidi SF, Petchprapa C, Harwin SF (2006) Imaging of total knee arthroplasty. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 10(1):47–63PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Gulati A, Chau R, Pandit HG, Gray H, Price AJ, Dodd CA, Murray DW (2009) The incidence of physiological radiolucency following Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement and its relationship to outcome. J Bone Joint Surg Br 91(7):896–902PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hofmann AA, Wyatt RW, Daniels AU, Armstrong L, Alazraki N, Taylor A Jr (1990) Bone scans after total knee arthroplasty in asymptomatic patients. Cemented versus cementless. Clin Orthop Relat Res (251):183–188Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mulhall KJ, Ghomrawi HM, Scully S, Callaghan JJ, Saleh KJ (2006) Current etiologies and modes of failure in total knee arthroplasty revision. Clin Orthop Relat Res 446:45–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    McNabb DC, Kim RH, Springer BD (2015) Instability after total knee arthroplasty. J Knee Surg 28(2):97–104PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Firestone TP, Eberle RW (2006) Surgical management of symptomatic instability following failed primary total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 88(Suppl 4):80–84PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Dennis DA (2004) Evaluation of painful total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 19(4 Suppl 1):35–40PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Gromov K, Korchi M, Thomsen MG, Husted H, Troelsen A (2014) What is the optimal alignment of the tibial and femoral components in knee arthroplasty? Acta Orthop 85(5):480–487PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kim YH, Park JW, Kim JS, Park SD (2014) The relationship between the survival of total knee arthroplasty and postoperative coronal, sagittal and rotational alignment of knee prosthesis. Int Orthop 38(2):379–385PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Lombardi AV Jr, Berend KR, Ng VY (2011) Neutral mechanical alignment: a requirement for successful TKA: affirms. Orthopedics 34(9):e504–e506PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Matziolis G, Adam J, Perka C (2010) Varus malalignment has no influence on clinical outcome in midterm follow-up after total knee replacement. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 130(12):1487–1491PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Parratte S, Pagnano MW, Trousdale RT, Berry DJ (2010) Effect of postoperative mechanical axis alignment on the fifteen-year survival of modern, cemented total knee replacements. J Bone Joint Surg Am 92(12):2143–2149PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Matziolis G, Krocker D, Tohtz S, Perka C (2006) [Variance of identification of femoral epicondyles in navigated total knee arthroplasty]. Orthopade 35(8):848–852PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Abdel MP, Oussedik S, Parratte S, Lustig S, Haddad FS (2014) Coronal alignment in total knee replacement: historical review, contemporary analysis, and future direction. Bone Joint J 96-B(7):857–862PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Bell SW, Young P, Drury C, Smith J, Anthony I, Jones B, Blyth M, McLean A (2014) Component rotational alignment in unexplained painful primary total knee arthroplasty. Knee 21(1):272–277PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Minoda Y, Kobayashi A, Iwaki H, Ohashi H, Takaoka K (2009) TKA sagittal alignment with navigation systems and conventional techniques vary only a few degrees. Clin Orthop Relat Res 467(4):1000–1006PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Iacono F et al (2015) The adductor tubercle: an important landmark to determine the joint line level in revision total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol ArthroscGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Maderbacher G, Keshmiri A, Schaumburger J, Springorum HR, Zeman F, Grifka J, Baier C (2014) Accuracy of bony landmarks for restoring the natural joint line in revision knee surgery: an MRI study. Int Orthop 38(6):1173–1181PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Servien E, Viskontas D, Giuffre BM, Coolican MR, Parker DA (2008) Reliability of bony landmarks for restoration of the joint line in revision knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 16(3):263–269PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Bonnin MP, Saffarini M, Shepherd D, Bossard N, Dantony E (2015) Oversizing the tibial component in TKAs: incidence, consequences and risk factors. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol ArthroscGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Bonnin MP, Schmidt A, Basiglini L, Bossard N, Dantony E (2013) Mediolateral oversizing influences pain, function, and flexion after TKA. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 21(10):2314–2324PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Lo CS, Wang SJ, Wu SS (2003) Knee stiffness on extension caused by an oversized femoral component after total knee arthroplasty: a report of two cases and a review of the literature. J Arthroplasty 18(6):804–808PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Nam D, Abdel MP, Cross MB, LaMont LE, Reinhardt KR, McArthur BA, Mayman DJ, Hanssen AD, Sculco TP (2014) The management of extensor mechanism complications in total knee arthroplasty. AAOS exhibit selection. J Bone Joint Surg Am 96(6):e47PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Schnurr C, Jarrous M, Gudden I, Eysel P, Konig DP (2013) Pre-operative arthritis severity as a predictor for total knee arthroplasty patients’ satisfaction. Int Orthop 37(7):1257–1261PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Manning BT, Lewis N, Tzeng TH, Saleh JK, Potty AG, Dennis DA, Mihalko WM, Goodman SB, Saleh KJ (2015) Diagnosis and Management of Extra-articular Causes of Pain After Total Knee Arthroplasty. Instr Course Lect 64:381–388PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Post ZD, Orozco FR, Ong AC (2013) Metal sensitivity after TKA presenting with systemic dermatitis and hair loss. Orthopedics 36(4):e525–e528PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Thomsen M, Rozak M, Thomas P (2011) Pain in a chromium-allergic patient with total knee arthroplasty: disappearance of symptoms after revision with a special surface-coated TKA – a case report. Acta Orthop 82(3):386–388PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Lutzner J, Hartmann A, Dinnebier G, Spornraft-Ragaller P, Hamann C, Kirschner S (2013) Metal hypersensitivity and metal ion levels in patients with coated or uncoated total knee arthroplasty: a randomised controlled study. Int Orthop 37(10):1925–1931PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Zeng Y, Feng W, Li J, Lu L, Ma C, Zeng J, Li F, Qi X, Fan Y (2014) A prospective study concerning the relationship between metal allergy and post-operative pain following total hip and knee arthroplasty. Int Orthop 38(11):2231–2236PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Granchi D, Cenni E, Tigani D, Trisolino G, Baldini N, Giunti A (2008) Sensitivity to implant materials in patients with total knee arthroplasties. Biomaterials 29(10):1494–1500PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Thienpont E, Berger Y (2013) No allergic reaction after TKA in a chrome-cobalt-nickel-sensitive patient: case report and review of the literature. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 21(3):636–640PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Scuderi GR (2005) The stiff total knee arthroplasty: causality and solution. J Arthroplasty 20(4 Suppl 2):23–26PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Brander VA, Stulberg SD, Adams AD, Harden RN, Bruehl S, Stanos SP, Houle T (2003) Predicting total knee replacement pain: a prospective, observational study. Clin Orthop Relat Res (416):27–36Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Klinik für Orthopädie, Centrum für Muskuloskeletale ChirurgieCharité – Universitätsmedizin BerlinBerlinDeutschland

Personalised recommendations