Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The impact of posterior-stabilized vs. constrained polyethylene liners in revision total knee arthroplasty

Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery volume 143, pages 995–1004 (2023)Cite this article

Abstract

Aim

Posterior stabilized (PS) and varus valgus constrained (VVC) knee polyethylene liners have been shown to confer excellent long-term functional results following revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA). The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes of patients who underwent rTKA using either a PS or VVC liner.

Methods

A retrospective comparative study of 314 rTKA with either PS or VVC liner and a minimum follow-up time of two years was conducted. Patient demographics, complications, readmissions, and re-revision etiology and rates were compared between groups. Kaplan–Meier survivorship analysis was performed to estimate freedom from all-cause revision.

Results

Hospital LOS (3.41 ± 2.49 vs. 3.34 ± 1.93 days, p = 0.793) and discharge disposition (p = 0.418) did not significantly differ between groups. At a mean follow-up of 3.55 ± 1.60 years, the proportion of patients undergoing re-revision did not significantly differ (19.1% vs. 18.7%, p = 0.929). In subgroup analysis of re-revision causes, the VVC cohort had superior survival from re-revision due to instability compared to the PS cohort (97.8% vs. 89.4%, p = 0.003). Freedom from re-revision due to aseptic loosening did not significantly differ between groups (85.2% vs. 78.8%, p = 0.436). Improvements in range of motion (ROM) from preoperative to latest follow-up were similar as well.

Conclusions

PS and VVC liners confer similar survivorship, complication rates, and overall knee ROM in rTKA. VVC liners were not associated with increased postoperative aseptic loosening and demonstrated superior freedom from re-revision due to instability. Future studies with longer follow-up are warranted to better determine significant differences in clinical outcomes between the two bearing options.

Level III evidence

Retrospective Cohort Study.

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

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  1. Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E et al (2007) Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Jt Surg Ser A 89:780–785. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.F.00222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Malhotra R, Garg B, Kumar V (2011) Dual massive skeletal allograft in revision total knee arthroplasty. Indian J Orthop. https://doi.org/10.4103/0019-5413.82345

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Hampton CB, Berliner ZP, Nguyen JT et al (2020) Aseptic loosening at the tibia in total knee arthroplasty: a function of cement mantle quality? J Arthroplasty 35:S190–S196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2020.02.028

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Ponzio DY, Austin MS (2015) Metaphyseal bone loss in revision knee arthroplasty. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 8:361–367. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12178-015-9291-x

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Khan M, Osman K, Green G, Haddad FS (2016) The epidemiology of failure in total knee arthroplasty. Bone Jt J 98-B:105–112. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.98B1.36293

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Dorr LD, Boiardo RA (1986) Technical considerations in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res (205):5–11 . PMID: 3516503

  7. Petrie JR, Haidukewych GJ (2016) Instability in total knee arthroplasty. Bone Jt J 98-B:116–119. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.98B1.36371

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Dunbar MJ, Haddad FS (2014) Patient satisfaction after total knee replacement. Bone Jt J 96-B:1285–1286. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.96B10.34981

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Dolan MM, Kelly NH, Nguyen JT et al (2011) Implant design influences tibial post wear damage in posterior-stabilized knees. Clin Orthop Relat Res 469:160–167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-010-1515-1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kahlenberg CA, Chalmers B, Sun HJ et al (2021) Polyethylene components in primary total knee arthroplasty: a comprehensive overview of fixed bearing design options. J Knee Surg. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0041-1723981

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Pagnano MW, Cushner FD, Scott NW (1998) Role of the posterior cruciate ligament in total knee arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 6:176–187. https://doi.org/10.5435/00124635-199805000-00006

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Koh IJ, Chalmers CE, Lin CC et al (2021) Posterior stabilized total knee arthroplasty reproduces natural joint laxity compared to normal in kinematically aligned total knee arthroplasty: a matched pair cadaveric study. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 141:119–127. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-020-03624-y

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Sierra RJ, Berry DJ (2008) Surgical technique differences between posterior-substituting and cruciate-retaining total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 23:20–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2008.06.004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Lei PF, Hu RY, Hu YH (2019) Bone defects in revision total knee arthroplasty and management. Orthop Surg 11:15–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/os.12425

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Currier JH, Currier BH, Abdel MP et al (2021) What factors drive polyethylene wear in total knee arthroplasty? Bone Jt J 103-B:1695–1701. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.103B11.BJJ-2020-2334.R1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Kim YH, Kim JS (2009) Revision total knee arthroplasty with use of a constrained condylar knee prosthesis. J Bone Jt Surg Ser A 91:1440–1447. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.H.00425

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Colyn W, Neirynck J, Vanlommel E et al (2022) Primary constrained-condylar-knee designs outperform posterior-stabilized and cruciate-retaining designs in high-grade varus osteoarthritic knees during short-term follow-up: a pilot study. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-022-04447-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Konopka J, Weitzler L, Westrich D et al (2018) The effect of constraint on post damage in total knee arthroplasty: posterior stabilized vs posterior stabilized constrained inserts. Arthroplast Today 4:200–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artd.2017.11.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Castagnini F, Bordini B, Cosentino M et al (2022) Constraint in complex primary total knee arthroplasty: rotating hinge versus condylar constrained implants. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-021-04322-z

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Ewald FC (1989) The Knee Society total knee arthroplasty roentgenographic evaluation and scoring system. Clin Orthop Relat Res. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003086-198911000-00003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Cameron HU, Hunter GA (1982) Failure in total knee arthroplasty: mechanisms, revisions, and results. Clin Orthop Relat Res (170):141–146. PMID: 7127939

  22. Cholewinski P, Putman S, Vasseur L et al (2015) Long-term outcomes of primary constrained condylar knee arthroplasty. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 101:449–454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2015.01.020

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Luque R, Rizo B, Urda A et al (2014) Predictive factors for failure after total knee replacement revision. Int Orthop 38:429–435. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-013-2268-8

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Moussa ME, Lee YY, Westrich GH et al (2017) Comparison of revision rates of non-modular constrained versus posterior stabilized total knee arthroplasty: a propensity score matched cohort study. HSS J 13:61–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11420-016-9533-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Deshmukh AJ, Rathod PA, Moses MJ et al (2016) Does a non-stemmed constrained condylar prosthesis predispose to early failure of primary total knee arthroplasty? Knee Surg Sport Traumatol Arthrosc 24:3194–3199. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-014-3494-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Kunze KN, Akram F, Fuller BC et al (2019) Superior survivorship for posterior stabilized versus constrained condylar articulations after revision total knee arthroplasty: a retrospective, comparative analysis at short-term follow-up. J Arthroplasty 34:3012-3017.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2019.07.008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Stockwell KD, Gascoyne TC, Singh M, Turgeon TR (2020) Survivorship of constrained polyethylene inserts in primary total knee replacements. Knee 27:1343–1348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2020.06.010

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Fleischman AN, Azboy I, Restrepo C et al (2017) Optimizing mechanical alignment with modular stems in revision TKA. J Arthroplasty 32:S209–S213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2017.05.039

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Kang SG, Park CH, Song SJ (2018) Stem fixation in revision total knee arthroplasty: indications, stem dimensions, and fixation methods. Knee Surg Relat Res 30:187–192. https://doi.org/10.5792/ksrr.18.019

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Puah KL, Chong HC, Foo LSS et al (2018) Clinical and functional outcomes: primary constrained condylar knee arthroplasty compared with posterior stabilized knee arthroplasty. JAAOS Glob Res Rev 2:e084. https://doi.org/10.5435/jaaosglobal-d-17-00084

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Hermans K, Vandenneucker H, Truijen J et al (2019) Hinged versus CCK revision arthroplasty for the stiff total knee. Knee 26:222–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2018.10.012

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. King BR, Gladnick BP, Lee YY et al (2014) Range of motion and function are not affected by increased post constraint in patients undergoing posterior stabilized total knee arthroplasty. Knee 21:194–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2013.07.002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

No funding was provided for this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Adult Reconstruction, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, NYU Langone Health, 301 East 17th Street, New York, NY, 10003, USA

    Ittai Shichman, Christian T. Oakley, Geidily Beaton, Utkarsh Anil, Joshua Rozell, Morteza Meftah & Ran Schwarzkopf

  2. Division of Orthopedic Surgery, Tel-Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Tel-Aviv, Israel

    Ittai Shichman & Nimrod Snir

Authors
  1. Ittai Shichman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christian T. Oakley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Geidily Beaton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Utkarsh Anil
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Nimrod Snir
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Joshua Rozell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Morteza Meftah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Ran Schwarzkopf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ran Schwarzkopf.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

RS is a paid consultant for Smith&Nephew and Intelijoint, and has stock options in Intelijoint and Gauss Surgical. MM is a paid consultant for Intelijoint and Conformis, receives royalties from Innomed and has stock options in CAIRA surgical. IS, CO, GB, UA, NS and JR have nothing to disclose.

Ethical approval

The present study was exempt from human-subjects review by our Institutional Review Board (IRB).

Informed consent

N/A.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Shichman, I., Oakley, C.T., Beaton, G. et al. The impact of posterior-stabilized vs. constrained polyethylene liners in revision total knee arthroplasty. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 143, 995–1004 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-022-04630-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-022-04630-y

Keywords

search

Navigation