Contemporary rotating hinge arthroplasty can safely be recommended in complex primary surgery

Abstract

Purpose

The objective was to evaluate clinical and radiological outcomes, survival rate and complications of primary contemporary rotating hinged total knee arthroplasty (CRH-TKA).

Methods

Through a national multicenter retrospective study (14 centers), 112 primary CRH-TKA performed between 2006 and 2011 were included. Indications were: severe frontal plane deformity (55%), inflammatory, constitutional, congenital or post-trauma arthritis (26%), ligament laxity (10%), primary osteoarthritis (9%). Population was elderly (68 ± 13), sedentary (37.5% with a Devane score ≥ 3) and with important comorbidities (87% with ASA score ≥ 2). A clinical (KSS, Oxford scores) and radiological evaluation (implant loosening), as well as survival and reoperation rates assessment, were performed.

Results

At last follow-up (7 ± 3 years), KSS and Oxford scores were 64 ± 43 and 33 ± 10 each with a significant improvement of both scores overtime (respectively, p = 0.047 and p < 0.001). Twenty-eight complications (25%) were reported: 12 infections, 6 stiffness, 5 aseptic loosening and 5 patellofemoral instabilities. All in all, 91% (n = 102) of implants were still sealed and in place, 6% (n = 7) required revision and 3% (n = 3) were loose but could not undergo revision due to weak general health status. Mortality rate (18%, n = 20), linked to comorbidities, was high.

Conclusion

Clinical outcomes and survival of primary CRH-TKA are acceptable given the difficult and complex clinical situations it faced, but with high infection rate. In primary surgery, for patients with severe deformity, bone loss or ligament laxity, the use of CRH-TKA can be recommended. The choice of these implants must remain cautious and limited to situations not allowing the use of less constrained implants.

Level of evidence

Retrospective therapeutic and cohort study, Level III; retrospective case series, Level IV.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  1. 1.

    Bistolfi A, Lustig S, Rosso F, Dalmasso P, Crova M, Massazza G (2013) Results with 98 Endo-Modell rotating hinge prostheses for primary knee arthroplasty. Orthopedics 36:e746–e752

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Böhler C, Kolbitsch P, Schuh R, Lass R, Kubista B, Giurea A (2017) Midterm results of a new rotating hinge knee implant: a 5-year follow-up. Biomed Res Int 2017:7532745

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Böhm P, Holy T (1998) Is there a future for hinged prostheses in primary total knee arthroplasty? A 20-year survivorship analysis of the Blauth prosthesis. J Bone Jt Surg Br 80:302–309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Charnley J (1972) The long-term results of low-friction arthroplasty of the hip performed as a primary intervention. J Bone Jt Surg Br 54:61–76

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Cheng H, Chen BP-H, Soleas IM, Ferko NC, Cameron CG, Hinoul P (2017) Prolonged operative duration increases risk of surgical site infections: a systematic review. Surg Infect 18:722–735

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Cottino U, Abdel MP, Perry KI, Mara KC, Lewallen DG, Hanssen AD (2017) Long-term results after total knee arthroplasty with contemporary rotating-hinge prostheses. J Bone Jt Surg Am 99:324–330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Murray D, Carr A (1998) Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total knee replacement. J Bone Jt Surg Br 80:63–69

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Dejour H, Neyret P (1991) Different knee prostheses and their technical problems. Rev Prat 41:1447–1455

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Devane PA, Horne JG, Martin K, Coldham G, Krause B (1997) Three-dimensional polyethylene wear of a press-fit titanium prosthesis: factors influencing generation of polyethylene debris. J Arthroplast 12:256–266

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Draganich LF, Whitehurst JB, Chou LS, Piotrowski GA, Pottenger LA, Finn HA (1999) The effects of the rotating-hinge total knee replacement on gait and stair stepping. J Arthroplast 14:743–755

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Efe T, Roessler PP, Heyse TJ, Hauk C, Pahrmann C, Getgood A, Schmitt J (2012) Mid-term results after implantation of rotating-hinge knee prostheses: primary versus revision. Orthop Rev 4:e35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Farid YR, Thakral R, Finn HA (2015) Intermediate-term results of 142 single-design, rotating-hinge implants: frequent complications may not preclude salvage of severely affected knees. J Arthroplast 30:2173–2180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Gehrke T, Kendoff D, Haasper C (2014) The role of hinges in primary total knee replacement. Bone Jt J 96-B:93–95

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Inglis AE, Walker PS (1991) Revision of failed knee replacements using fixed-axis hinges. J Bone Jt Surg Br 73:757–761

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD, Scott WN (1989) Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 248:13–14

    Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Ishii Y, Noguchi H, Sato J, Ishii H, Takayama S, Toyabe S-I (2017) Life expectancy of osteoarthritic patients after primary total knee arthroplasty. J Clin Orthop Trauma 8:S57–S61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Kearns SM, Culp BM, Bohl DD, Sporer SM, Della Valle CJ, Levine BR (2018) Rotating hinge implants for complex primary and revision total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 33:766–770

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Kowalczewski J, Marczak D, Synder M, Sibiński M (2014) Primary rotating-hinge total knee arthroplasty: good outcomes at mid-term follow-up. J Arthroplast 29:1202–1206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Long R, Gheduzzi S, Bucher TA, Toms AD, Miles AW (2013) A biomechanical evaluation of hinged total knee replacement prostheses. Proc Inst Mech Eng [H] 227:875–883

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Lozano LM, López V, Ríos J, Popescu D, Torner P, Castillo F, Maculé F (2012) Better outcomes in severe and morbid obese patients (BMI > 35 kg/m2) in primary Endo-Model rotating-hinge total knee arthroplasty. Sci World J 2012:249391

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Martin JR, Beahrs TR, Stuhlman CR, Trousdale RT (2016) Complex primary total knee arthroplasty: long-term outcomes. J Bone Jt Surg Am 98:1459–1470

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Mavrodontidis AN, Andrikoula SI, Kontogeorgakos VA, Babis GC, Xenakis TA, Beris AE, Soucacos PN (2008) Application of the Endomodel rotating hinge knee prosthesis for knee osteoarthritis. J Surg Orthop Adv 17:179–184

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Moussa ME, Lee Y-Y, Patel AR, Westrich GH (2017) Clinical outcomes following the use of constrained condylar knees in primary total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 32:1869–1873

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Petrou G, Petrou H, Tilkeridis C, Stavrakis T, Kapetsis T, Kremmidas N, Gavras M (2004) Medium-term results with a primary cemented rotating-hinge total knee replacement. A 7- to 15-year follow-up. J Bone Jt Surg Br 86:813–817

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Pour AE, Parvizi J, Slenker N, Purtill JJ, Sharkey PF (2007) Rotating hinged total knee replacement: use with caution. J Bone Jt Surg Am 89:1735–1741

    Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Rand JA, Chao EY, Stauffer RN (1987) Kinematic rotating-hinge total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Jt Surg Am 69:489–497

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Saklad M (1941) Grading of patients for surgical procedures. Anesthesiol J Am Soc Anesthesiol 2:281–284

    Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Sanguineti F, Mangano T, Formica M, Franchin F (2014) Total knee arthroplasty with rotating-hinge Endo-Model prosthesis: clinical results in complex primary and revision surgery. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 134:1601–1607

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Smith TH, Gad BV, Klika AK, Styron JF, Joyce TA, Barsoum WK (2013) Comparison of mechanical and nonmechanical failure rates associated with rotating hinged total knee arthroplasty in nontumor patients. J Arthroplast 28:62–67.e1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Weiss RJ, Thorsell M, Stark A, Nyvang J, Hedström M (2014) 2- to 9-year outcome of stemmed total knee arthroplasty: similar failure rates in patients when used primary or as a revision. Acta Orthop 85:609–613

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Yang J-H, Yoon J-R, Oh C-H, Kim T-S (2012) Primary total knee arthroplasty using rotating-hinge prosthesis in severely affected knees. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 20:517–523

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

This study was organised by the French Orthopedic and Trauma Surgery Society (SOFCOT).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Consortia

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas Neri.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

For all authors, there is no conflict of interest in the present study.

Ethical approval

French Orthopedic and Trauma Surgery Society (SOFCOT) does not require an ethical approval for in-house studies on standard of care procedures.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Neri, T., Boyer, B., Papin, PE. et al. Contemporary rotating hinge arthroplasty can safely be recommended in complex primary surgery. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 28, 1780–1788 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-019-05589-x

Download citation

Keywords

  • Total knee arthroplasty
  • Rotating-hinge
  • Primary knee arthroplasty