Advertisement

International Orthopaedics

, Volume 29, Issue 4, pp 241–244 | Cite as

Revision of the Sheehan total knee arthroplasty

  • C. Hurson
  • S. Boran
  • K. Synnott
  • O. Powell
  • W. Quinlan
Original Paper
  • 123 Downloads

Abstract

The use of the Sheehan knee prosthesis extended from 1971 to 2002. It incorporated a semi-constrained hinge with intra-medullary stems cemented into the femur and tibia. While some authors have reported excellent short-term results, others have reported revision rates of up to 31% at 5–10 years. The aim of this study was to review the senior author’s experience in revising these arthroplasties. We review 54 Sheehan total knee replacements and discuss the difficulties encountered during first and subsequent revisions and the often-complex reconstruction techniques used to overcome these.

Keywords

Femoral Component Tibial Component Periprosthetic Fracture Revision Procedure Cement Mantle 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Résumé

L’utilisation de la prothèse de genou de type Sheehan s’est étendue de 1971 à 2002. Elle comportait une charnière semi-contrainte avec des tiges intra-médullaires cimentées dans le fémur et le tibia. Tandis que d’excellents résultats à court terme ont été rapportés par quelques auteurs, un taux de révision jusqu’à 31% à 5–10 ans a été rapporté par d’autres. Le but de cette étude était examiner l’expérience de l’auteur senior dans la révision des prothèses de Sheehan. Nous avons examiné 54 prothèses et discutons les difficultés rencontrées pendant l’arthroplastie initiale et les révisions ultérieures ainsi que les techniques souvent complexes de reconstruction utilisées pour les mener à bien.

References

  1. 1.
    Callihan SM, Halley DK (1985) Prospective analysis of Sheehan total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 192:124–131PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chen C, Helal B (1980) Preliminary results of the Sheehan total knee prosthesis. Int Orthop 4:67–71CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jakim I, Barlin C, Sweet MB (1988) A 5–9 year follow-up study of the Sheehan total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 3(Suppl):S21–S30Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Krugluger J, Zenz P, Parzer R, Jantsch S, Hackel H (1991) Longterm analysis of Sheehan total knee arthroplasty. Int Orthop 15:149–154CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    McCoy GF, McLeod NM, Nixon JR (1983) Experience with the Sheehan knee replacement. Ulster Med J 52:35–39PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Porter M, Hirst P (1988) The Sheehan total knee arthroplasty. A retrospective review. Clin Orthop 236:227–232PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rickhuss PK, Gray AJ, Rowley DI (1994) A 5–10 year follow-up of the Sheehan total knee endoprosthesis in Tayside. J R Coll Surg Edinb 39:326–328PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Saleh KJ, Macaulay A, Radosevich DM et al (2001) The knee society index of severity for failed total knee arthroplasty: practical application. Clin Orthop 392:153–165PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sheehan JM (1978) Arthroplasty of the knee. J Bone Joint Surg Br 60:333–338PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sheehan JM (1979) Arthroplasty of the knee. Clin Orthop 145:101–109PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. Hurson
    • 1
    • 2
  • S. Boran
    • 1
  • K. Synnott
    • 1
  • O. Powell
    • 1
  • W. Quinlan
    • 1
  1. 1.Cappagh National Orthopaedic HospitalDublin 11Ireland
  2. 2.Orthopaedic SpRDublin 14Ireland

Personalised recommendations