, Volume 31, Issue 2, pp 147–161 | Cite as

La revisione con protesi CCK: nostra esperienza e risultati clinico funzionali al follow-up

  • A. CameraEmail author
  • S. Biggi
  • G. Cattaneo

Total knee revision arthroplasty using Condylar-Constrained Knee (CCK) implants: our experience and functional outcomes at long-term follow-up



To retrospectively review the results at minimum ten years after surgery of a consecutive series of total knee arthroplasties (TKAs) performed using a constrained condylar implant in patients with severe coronal plane instability.

Materials and Methods

The series comprised of 44 patients (45 knees) who received primary (19 knees) or revision (26 knees) TKA with a constrained condylar implant between 2001 and 2003 at a single institution.


There were no revisions or any other surgery related complications at a mean implantation time of 11.0 years. In 38 patients (15 knees in the primary group and 24 knees in the revision group) who were available for clinicoradiographic follow-up at a minimum of ten years, there was no sign of radiographic loosening. Two patients showed cortical hypertrophy at the extension stem tip but none complained of pain around the stem tip. According to the TLKSS score grading, 73% of the patients in the primary group had results categorized as good or excellent, while 54% of the patients in the revision group had fair results. Four patients (one (7%) in the primary group and three (13%) in the revision group) had poor results. The median WOMAC Index was 80.2% (interquartile range: 74.0%–81.2%) and 74.0% (interquartile range: 72.1%–75.8%) in the primary and in the revision groups, respectively (\(p=0.010\)).


This study showed satisfactory clinical outcomes with no re-operations at minimum ten years after implantation in patients who had undergone primary or revision TKA with a condylar constrained implant.


Conflitto di interesse

Gli autori A. Camera, S. Biggi e G. Cattaneo dichiarano di non avere alcun conflitto di interesse.

Consenso informato e conformità agli standard etici

Tutte le procedure descritte nello studio e che hanno coinvolto esseri umani sono state attuate in conformità alle norme etiche stabilite dalla dichiarazione di Helsinki del 1975 e successive modifiche. Il consenso informato è stato ottenuto da tutti i pazienti inclusi nello studio.

Human and Animal Rights

L’articolo non contiene alcuno studio eseguito su esseri umani e su animali da parte degli autori.


  1. 1.
    Morgan H, Battista V, Leopold SS (2005) Constraint in primary total knee arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 13(8):515–524 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    McAuley JP, Engh GA (2003) Constraint in total knee arthroplasty: when and what? J Arthroplast 18(3 Suppl 1):51–54 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rodriguez-Merchan EC (2011) Instability following total knee arthroplasty. HSS J 7(3):273–278 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Barrack RL (2001) Evolution of the rotating hinge for complex total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 392:292–299 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lachiewicz PF, Soileau ES (2006) Ten-year survival and clinical results of constrained components in primary total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 21(6):803–808 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sculco TP (2006) The role of constraint in total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 21(4 Suppl 1):54–56 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chen CE, Juhn RJ, Ko JY (2011) Dissociation of polyethylene insert from the tibial baseplate following revision total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 26(2):339–343 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rapuri VR, Clarke HD, Spangehl MJ, Beauchamp CP (2011) Five cases of failure of the tibial polyethylene insert locking mechanism in one design of constrained knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 26(6):976–984 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    McPherson EJ, Vince KG (1993) Breakage of a total condylar III knee prosthesis. A case report. J Arthroplast 8(5):561–563 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nikolopoulos DD, Polyzois IG, Magnissalis EA et al. (2012) Fracture at the stem-condylar junction of a modular femoral prosthesis in a varus-valgus constrained total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 20(6):1071–1074 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ahn JM, Suh JT (2010) Detection of locking bolt loosening in the stemcondyle junction of a modular femoral stem in revision total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 25(4):660–663 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Howell GE, Rorabeck CH (1999) Femoral stem disengagement in modular total knee revision arthroplasty. Knee 6:221–223 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lim LA, Trousdale RT, Berry DJ, Hanssen AD (2001) Failure of the stem-condyle junction of a modular femoral stem in revision total knee arthroplasty: a report of five cases. J Arthroplast 16(1):128–132 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nadkarni JB, Carden DG (2005) Acute locking in revision total knee arthroplasty due to disengagement of the locking screw. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 13(3):190–192 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Westrich GH, Hidaka C, Windsor RE (1997) Disengagement of a locking screw from a modular stem in revision total knee arthroplasty. A report of three cases. J Bone Jt Surg Am 79(2):254–258 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lee JK, Lee S, Kim D et al. (2013) Revision total knee arthroplasty with varus-valgus constrained prosthesis versus posterior stabilized prosthesis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 21(3):620–628 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lachiewicz PF, Soileau ES (2011) Results of a second-generation constrained condylar prosthesis in primary total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 26(8):1228–1231 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Maynard LM, Sauber TJ, Kostopoulos VK et al. (2013) Survival of primary condylar-constrained total knee arthroplasty at a minimum of 7 years. J Arthroplast 29(6):1197–1201 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nam D, Umunna BP, Cross MB et al. (2012) Clinical results and failure mechanisms of a nonmodular constrained knee without stem extensions. HSS J 8(2):96–102 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kim YH, Kim JS (2009) Revision total knee arthroplasty with use of a constrained condylar knee prosthesis. J Bone Jt Surg Am 91(6):1440–1447 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sheng PY, Jamsen E, Lehto MU et al. (2005) Revision total knee arthroplasty with the Total Condylar III system in inflammatory arthritis. J Bone Jt Surg Br 87(9):1222–1224 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wilke BK, Wagner ER, Trousdale RT (2014) Long-term survival of semiconstrained total knee arthroplasty for revision surgery. J Arthroplast 29(5):1005–1008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Insall J, Scott WN, Ranawat CS (1979) The total condylar knee prosthesis. A report of two hundred and twenty cases. J Bone Jt Surg Am 61(2):173–180 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tegner Y, Lysholm J (1985) Rating systems in the evaluation of knee ligament injuries. Clin Orthop Relat Res 198:43–49 Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Roos EM, Roos HP, Lohmander LS et al. (1998) Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS)—development of a self-administered outcome measure. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 28(2):88–96 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH et al. (1988) Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. J Rheumatol 15(12):1833–1840 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mitsou A, Vallianatos P, Piskopakis N, Maheras S (1990) Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction by over-the-top repair combined with popliteus tendon plasty. J Bone Jt Surg Br 72(3):398–404 Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Swanenburg J, Koch PP, Meier N, Wirth B (2014) Function and activity in patients with knee arthroplasty: validity and reliability of a German version of the Lysholm Score and the Tegner Activity Scale. Swiss Med Wkly 144:w13976 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Roos EM, Lohmander LS (2003) The Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS): from joint injury to osteoarthritis. Health Qual Life Outcomes 1:64 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Woolacott NF, Corbett MS, Rice SJ (2012) The use and reporting of WOMAC in the assessment of the benefit of physical therapies for the pain of osteoarthritis of the knee: findings from a systematic review of clinical trials. Rheumatology (Oxford) 51(8):1440–1446 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Zicat B, Engh CA, Gokcen E (1995) Patterns of osteolysis around total hip components inserted with and without cement. J Bone Jt Surg Am 77(3):432–439 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Whaley AL, Trousdale RT, Rand JA, Hanssen AD (2003) Cemented long-stem revision total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 18(5):592–599 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ewald FC (1989) The Knee Society total knee arthroplasty roentgenographic evaluation and scoring system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 248:9–12 Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Bauman RD, Johnson DR, Menge TJ et al. (2012) Can a high-flexion total knee arthroplasty relieve pain and restore function without premature failure? Clin Orthop Relat Res 470(1):150–158 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Camera A, Biggi S, Cattaneo G, Brusaferri G (2015) Ten-year results of primary and revision condylar-constrained total knee arthroplasty in patients with severe coronal plane instability. Open Orthop J 9:379–389 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Società Italiana Ortopedici Traumatologi Ospedalieri d’Italia 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.S.C. Chirurgia ProtesicaOspedale Santa CoronaPietra LigureItalia
  2. 2.U.O. Clinica Ortopedica e TraumatologicaOspedale Policlinico San MartinoGenovaItalia

Personalised recommendations