Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Salvage Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty

  • 500 Accesses

Abstract

The demand for salvage surgery is increasing, with more and more patients coming to their third or fourth revision in a situation with increasing bone loss. Traditionally, salvage options rely on allograft-prosthetic composite techniques, the use of massive endoprostheses which are currently the most commonly used option, implant-arthrodesis techniques and amputation. This chapter focuses on the practical aspects of salvage revision surgery, particularly the use of massive endoprostheses, and presents our tertiary experience with case demonstrations.

A sound man is good at salvage, at seeing nothing is lost.

Laozi

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. 17th Annual Report of the National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man and the States of Guernsey. [cited 2020 23rd Oct]; Available from https://reports.njrcentre.org.uk/Portals/0/PDFdownloads/NJR%2017th%20Annual%20Report%202020.pdf.

  2. Hamilton DF et al. Dealing with the predicted increase in demand for revision total knee arthroplasty: challenges, risks and opportunities. Bone Joint J. 2015; 97-b(6):723–8.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Geary MB et al. Why Do Revision Total Knee Arthroplasties Fail? A Single-Center Review of 1632 Revision Total Knees Comparing Historic and Modern Cohorts. J Arthroplasty; 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Engh GA, Ammeen DJ. Bone loss with revision total knee arthroplasty: defect classification and alternatives for reconstruction. Instr Course Lect. 1999;48:167–75.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Huff TW, Sculco TP. Management of bone loss in revision total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2007;22(7 Suppl 3):32–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bush JL, Wilson JB, Vail TP. Management of bone loss in revision total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;452:186–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Backstein D, Safir O, Gross A. Management of bone loss: structural grafts in revision total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;446:104–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Clatworthy MG et al. The use of structural allograft for uncontained defects in revision total knee arthroplasty. A minimum five-year review. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001;83(3):404–11.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Dennis DA. The structural allograft composite in revision total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2002;17(4 Suppl 1):90–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Panegrossi G, et al. Bone loss management in total knee revision surgery. Int Orthop. 2014;38(2):419–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Wilding CP, et al. Can a silver-coated arthrodesis implant provide a viable alternative to above knee amputation in the unsalvageable, infected total knee arthroplasty? J Arthroplasty. 2016;31(11):2542–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Matar HE, Stritch P, Emms N. Outcomes of implant-arthrodesis as limb salvage for failed total knee arthroplasties with significant bone loss: case series. J Long Term Eff Med Implants. 2018;28(4):347–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Chen AF, et al. Better function for fusions versus above-the-knee amputations for recurrent periprosthetic knee infection. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;470(10):2737–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Pala E, et al. Megaprosthesis of the knee in tumor and revision surgery. Acta Biomed. 2017;88(2s):129–38.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Höll S, et al. Distal femur and proximal tibia replacement with megaprosthesis in revision knee arthroplasty: a limb-saving procedure. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2012;20(12):2513–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Korim MT, et al. A systematic review of endoprosthetic replacement for non-tumour indications around the knee joint. Knee. 2013;20(6):367–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Biau D, et al. Survival of total knee replacement with a megaprosthesis after bone tumor resection. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88(6):1285–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Albergo JI, et al. Proximal tibia reconstruction after bone Tumor resection: are survivorship and outcomes of Endoprosthetic replacement and Osteoarticular allograft similar? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017;475(3):676–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Bus MP, et al. What are the long-term results of MUTARS(®) modular endoprostheses for reconstruction of tumor resection of the distal femur and proximal Tibia? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017;475(3):708–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Henderson ER, et al. Failure mode classification for tumor endoprostheses: retrospective review of five institutions and a literature review. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011;93(5):418–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Engh CA, Bobyn JD, Glassman AH, Porous-coated hip replacement. The factors governing bone ingrowth, stress shielding, and clinical results. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1987;69(1):45–55.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Amanatullah DF, et al. Non-oncologic total femoral arthroplasty: retrospective review. J Arthroplasty. 2014;29(10):2013–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Fonseca F, Sousa A, Completo A. Femoral revision knee Arthroplasty with Metaphyseal sleeves: the use of a stem is not mandatory of a structural point of view. J Exp Orthop. 2020;7(1):24.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Lombardi AV, Jr, Berend KR, The shattered femur: radical solution options. J Arthrop. 2006;21(4 Suppl 1):107–11.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Berend KR, et al. Total femoral arthroplasty for salvage of end-stage prosthetic disease. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;427:162–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Sierra RJ, Trousdale RT, Pagnano MW, Above-the-knee amputation after a total knee replacement: prevalence, etiology, and functional outcome. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85-a(6):1000–4.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Fedorka CJ, et al. Functional ability after above-the-knee amputation for infected total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469(4):1024–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Pring DJ, Marks L, Angel JC. Mobility after amputation for failed knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1988;70(5):770–1.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Rodriguez-Merchan EC. Knee fusion or above-the-knee amputation after failed two-stage Reimplantation total knee arthroplasty. Arch Bone Jt Surg. 2015;3(4):241–3.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Matar HE, Bloch BV, James PJ. Outcomes of salvage Endoprostheses in revision total knee arthroplasty for infection and aseptic loosening: experience of a specialist centre. Knee. 2021;29:547–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Nottingham Elective Orthopaedic Services, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK

    Hosam E. Matar,  Benjamin V. Bloch & Peter J. James

  2. Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

    Hugh U. Cameron

Authors
  1. Hosam E. Matar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Benjamin V. Bloch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hugh U. Cameron
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Peter J. James
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hosam E. Matar .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Matar, H.E., Bloch, .V., Cameron, H.U., James, P.J. (2021). Salvage Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty. In: Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-81285-0_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-81285-0_11

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-81284-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-81285-0

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation