Advertisement

Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy

, Volume 24, Issue 10, pp 3235–3241 | Cite as

Moderate clinical improvement after revision arthroplasty of the severely stiff knee

  • P. J. C. Heesterbeek
  • J. H. M. Goosen
  • J. J. P. Schimmel
  • K. C. Defoort
  • G. G. van Hellemondt
  • A. B. Wymenga
Knee

Abstract

Purpose

Revision of the severe stiff total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is challenging, and clinical outcome is inferior to other indications for revision. The purpose of the present study was to determine clinical outcome of TKA revision in patients with severe stiffness (range of motion (ROM) ≤ 70°) and evaluate a possible influence of accompanying findings, such as component malposition, aseptic loosening or instability.

Methods

A prospective cohort of 40 patients with a preoperative ROM ≤ 70° and a minimum of 2-year follow-up after total system revision (Genesis or Legion stemmed condylar implant) was evaluated. ROM, Knee Society Scoring System (KSS) and visual analogue scale (VAS) pain scores were obtained preoperatively and at 2 years. Patient satisfaction and complication rate were assessed. Component malposition was most frequently reported as accompanying finding (n = 27). Comparisons between pre- and postoperative outcome (p < 0.05) and between different subgroups (component malposition, aseptic loosening, and instability) based on accompanying findings were made (no statistical comparison).

Results

ROM, KSS and VAS pain scores improved significantly (p < 0.001): median ROM at two years 85° (range 10–125) and median gain 25° (range −10 to +85). Median VAS satisfaction was 53.5 points (range 15–98). Seventeen patients reported at least one complication, including one re-revision. Six patients underwent manipulation under anaesthesia, and five were referred to the pain clinic. No clear differences between subgroups were observed.

Conclusions

TKA revision in patients with severe stiffness resulted in a moderate but significant improved clinical outcome after 2 years. Accompanying abnormalities such as component malposition, aseptic loosening or instability did not influence clinical outcome. Realistic patient counselling on the moderate outcome and possible remaining limitations in daily life might help to improve patient satisfaction.

Level of evidence

Therapeutic studies—case series with no comparison group, Level IV.

Keywords

Revision total knee arthroplasty Stiffness Revision surgery Clinical outcome Range of motion 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Saskia Susan (research nurse) and Jolanda Rubrech (administrative assistant) for assisting in data collection and Peter van Essen for his contribution. The institute of one or more of the authors (P.H., J.S., K.D., G.H., J.G., A.W.) has received funding from Smith & Nephew for staff and materials. One or more of the authors (K.D., G.H., J.G., A.W.) have received funding from Smith & Nephew. Smith & Nephew had no involvement in the study design, data collection, analysis and interpretation, writing of the manuscript and the decision to submit the work for publication.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

None.

References

  1. 1.
    Baker P, Cowling P, Kurtz S, Jameson S, Gregg P, Deehan D (2012) Reason for revision influences early patient outcomes after aseptic knee revision. Clin Orthop Relat Res 470:2244–2252CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barrack RL, Schrader T, Bertot AJ, Wolfe MW, Myers L (2001) Component rotation and anterior knee pain after total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 392:46–55CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Berger RA, Rubash HE, Seel MJ, Thompson WH, Crossett LS (1993) Determining the rotational alignment of the femoral component in total knee arthroplasty using the epicondylar axis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 286:40–47PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bong MR, Di Cesare PE (2004) Stiffness after total knee arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 12:164–171CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Christensen CP, Crawford JJ, Olin MD, Vail TP (2002) Revision of the stiff total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 17:409–415CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Freeman TA, Parvizi J, Dela Valle CJ, Steinbeck MJ (2010) Mast cells and hypoxia drive tissue metaplasia and heterotopic ossification in idiopathic arthrofibrosis after total knee arthroplasty. Fibrogenes Tissue Repair 3:17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ghani H, Maffulli N, Khanduja V (2012) Management of stiffness following total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review. Knee 19:751–759CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gonzalez DV, Leali A, Haas S (2007) Etiology and surgical interventions for stiff total knee replacements. HSS J 3:182–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Haidukewych GJ, Jacofsky DJ, Pagnano MW, Trousdale RT (2005) Functional results after revision of well-fixed components for stiffness after primary total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 20:133–138CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hartman CW, Ting NT, Moric M, Berger RA, Rosenberg AG, Della Valle CJ (2010) Revision total knee arthroplasty for stiffness. J Arthroplasty 25:62–66CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Harvey IA, Barry K, Kirby SP, Johnson R, Elloy MA (1993) Factors affecting the range of movement of total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br 75:950–955PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Heesterbeek PJ, Verdonschot N, Wymenga AB (2008) In vivo knee laxity in flexion and extension: a radiographic study in 30 older healthy subjects. Knee 15:45–49CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hofmann S, Romero J, Roth-Schiffl E, Albrecht T (2003) Rotational malalignment of the components may cause chronic pain or early failure in total knee arthroplasty. Orthopade 32:469–476PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Keeney JA, Clohisy JC, Curry M, Maloney WJ (2005) Revision total knee arthroplasty for restricted motion. Clin Orthop Relat Res 440:135–140CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kim GK, Mortazavi SM, Parvizi J, Purtill JJ (2012) Revision for stiffness following TKA: a predictable procedure? Knee 19:332–334CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kim J, Nelson CL, Lotke PA (2004) Stiffness after total knee arthroplasty Prevalence of the complication and outcomes of revision. J Bone Joint Surg Am 86-A:1479–1484PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nagamine R, White SE, McCarthy DS, Whiteside LA (1995) Effect of rotational malposition of the femoral component on knee stability kinematics after total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 10:265–270CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nicholls DW, Dorr LD (1990) Revision surgery for stiff total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 5(Suppl):S73–S77CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nicoll D, Rowley DI (2010) Internal rotational error of the tibial component is a major cause of pain after total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 92:1238–1244CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Parvizi J, Gehrke T (2014) Definition of periprosthetic joint infection. J Arthroplasty 29:1331CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Patil N, Lee K, Huddleston JI, Harris AH, Goodman SB (2010) Aseptic versus septic revision total knee arthroplasty: patient satisfaction, outcome and quality of life improvement. Knee 17:200–203CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ries MD, Badalamente M (2000) Arthrofibrosis after total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 380:177–183CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ritter MA, Stringer EA (1979) Predictive range of motion after total knee replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 143:115–119PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Romero J, Stahelin T, Binkert C, Pfirrmann C, Hodler J, Kessler O (2007) The clinical consequences of flexion gap asymmetry in total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 22:235–240CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Scuderi GR (2005) The stiff total knee arthroplasty: causality and solution. J Arthroplasty 20:23–26CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    van Kempen RW, Schimmel JJ, van Hellemondt GG, Vandenneucker H, Wymenga AB (2013) Reason for revision TKA predicts clinical outcome: prospective evaluation of 150 consecutive patients with 2-years followup. Clin Orthop Relat Res 471:2296–2302CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Victor J, Van DD, Labey L, Van GF, Parizel P, Bellemans J (2009) A common reference frame for describing rotation of the distal femur: a ct-based kinematic study using cadavers. J Bone Joint Surg Br 91:683–690CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Yercan HS, Sugun TS, Bussiere C, Ait Si ST, Davies A, Neyret P (2006) Stiffness after total knee arthroplasty: prevalence, management and outcomes. Knee 13:111–117CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Sports Traumatology, Knee Surgery, Arthroscopy (ESSKA) 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. J. C. Heesterbeek
    • 1
  • J. H. M. Goosen
    • 1
  • J. J. P. Schimmel
    • 1
  • K. C. Defoort
    • 1
  • G. G. van Hellemondt
    • 1
  • A. B. Wymenga
    • 1
  1. 1.Sint MaartenskliniekNijmegenNetherlands

Personalised recommendations