Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Good clinical and radiological outcomes of the varus-valgus constrained mobile-bearing implant in revision total knee arthroplasty

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Orthopaedics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Knee instability is one of the most common indications for having to undergo revision total knee arthroplasty (RTKA) and can be prevented with adequate implant selection and good surgical technique. Varus-valgus constrained implants (VVC) are indicated for cases of RTKA with absent ligament function in order to provide the necessary stability. While mobile-bearing articulations are thought to decrease the risk of aseptic loosening in comparison to their fixed-bearing counterparts, there is limited data on their outcomes. The purpose of our study is to present the clinical and radiological outcomes for patients undergoing an RTKA procedure with the mobile-bearing VVC implant.

Methods

Between January 2008 to January 2018, 93 patients underwent RTKA with the use of varus-valgus mobile-bearing (VVCMB) prosthesis. The main indications for RTKA were instability 38.7% (n = 36), aseptic loosening 31.2% (n = 29), infection in 26.9% (n = 25), and other 3.3%. The mean follow-up time was 56 months. Clinical outcomes were assessed by knee society scores, range of motion, and rate of re-operation.

Results

The mean knee society score increased significantly from 65.52 pre-operatively to 89.65 post-operatively (p < 0.001). The five year cumulative incidence of re-operation in our study was 7.53% (n = 7). Our study reported no cases of aseptic loosening or mobile-bearing spin-out. The number of flexion contractures decreased from n = 23 (24.7%) pre-operatively to n = 11 (11.8%) post-operatively (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

The VVC mobile-bearing prosthesis demonstrated good clinical outcomes and mid-term survivorship in patients undergoing RTKA. Additional follow-up is required in the long term.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kurtz SM, Ong KL, Schmier J et al (2007) Future clinical and economic impact of revision total hip and knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89(Suppl 3):144–151. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.G.00587

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Losina E, Thornhill TS, Rome BN et al (2012) The dramatic increase in total knee replacement utilization rates in the United States cannot be fully explained by growth in population size and the obesity epidemic. J Bone Joint Surg Am 94:201–207. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.J.01958

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Abdelaal MS, Restrepo C, Sharkey PF (2020) Global perspectives on arthroplasty of hip and knee joints. Orthop Clin North Am 51:169–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocl.2019.11.003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Callaghan JJ, O’rourke MR, Saleh KJ (2004) Why knees fail: lessons learned. J Arthroplasty 19:31–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2004.02.015

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Rodriguez-Merchan EC (2011) Instability following total knee arthroplasty. HSS J 7:273–278. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11420-011-9217-0

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Reina N, Salib CG, Pagnano MW et al (2020) Varus-valgus constrained implants with a mobile-bearing articulation: results of 367 revision total knee arthroplasties. J Arthroplasty 35:1060–1063. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2019.11.023

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Engh GA, Ammeen DJ (1999) Bone loss with revision total knee arthroplasty: defect classification and alternatives for reconstruction. Instr Course Lect 48:167–175

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Nelson CL, Gioe TJ, Cheng EY, Thompson RC (2003) Implant selection in revision total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Jt Surg - Ser A 85:43–51. https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-200300001-00009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Mabry TM, Hanssen AD (2007) The role of stems and augments for bone loss in revision knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 22:56–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2007.02.008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Capella M, Dolfin M, Saccia F (2016) Mobile bearing and fixed bearing total knee arthroplasty. Ann. Transl, Med

    Book  Google Scholar 

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

  12. Sculco TP (2006) The role of constraint in total knee arthoplasty. J Arthroplasty 21:54–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2006.02.166

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Parratte S, Pagnano MW (2008) Instability after total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 90:184–194

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kim RH, Martin JR, Dennis DA et al (2017) Midterm clinical and radiographic results of mobile-bearing revision total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 32:1930–1934. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2017.01.014

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Limberg AK, Tibbo ME, Pagnano MW et al (2020) Varus-valgus constraint in 416 revision total knee arthroplasties with cemented stems provides a reliable reconstruction with a low subsequent revision rate at early to mid-term review. Bone Joint J 102-B:458–462. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.102B4.BJJ-2019-0719.R2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Patel JV, Masonis JL, Guerin J et al (2004) The fate of augments to treat-type-2 bone defects in revision knee arthroplasty. J Bone Jt Surg - Ser B. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.86B2.13564

  17. Adravanti P, Vasta S (2017) Varus-valgus constrained implants in total knee arthroplasty: indications and technique. Acta Biomed 88:112–117. 10.23750/abm.v88i2-S.6521

  18. Kim YH, Park JW, Kim JS, Oh HK (2015) Long-term clinical outcomes and survivorship of revision total knee arthroplasty with use of a constrained condylar knee prosthesis. J Arthroplasty 30:1804–1809. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2015.04.019

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Wilke BK, Wagner ER, Trousdale RT (2014) Long-term survival of semi-constrained total knee arthroplasty for revision surgery. J Arthroplasty 29:1005–1008. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2013.10.025

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Lee JK, Lee S, Kim D et al (2013) Revision total knee arthroplasty with varus-valgus constrained prosthesis versus posterior stabilized prosthesis. Knee Surgery, Sport Traumatol Arthrosc 21:620–628. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-012-1998-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Orthopedic Department, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Ichilov Hospital, affiliated to the Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, 6 Weizman St., 6423906, Tel Aviv, Israel

    Ron Gurel, Etay Elbaz, Nimrod Snir, Aviram Gold & Yaniv Warschawski

  2. Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel

    Samuel Morgan

Authors
  1. Ron Gurel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Samuel Morgan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Etay Elbaz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nimrod Snir
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Aviram Gold
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Yaniv Warschawski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yaniv Warschawski.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval

This study was approved by the institutional review board.

Conflicts of interest

None of the authors in this study have any conflict of interest.

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

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gurel, R., Morgan, S., Elbaz, E. et al. Good clinical and radiological outcomes of the varus-valgus constrained mobile-bearing implant in revision total knee arthroplasty. International Orthopaedics (SICOT) 45, 1199–1204 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-021-05003-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-021-05003-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation