Limb Salvage pp 471-478 | Cite as

An Individualized Design Approach for Revising Total Knee Hinges

  • A. E. InglisJr.
  • P. S. Walker
Conference paper


Revision knee replacement is becoming an increasingly frequent problem in contemporary knee surgery because of the many primary cases and the long followup of the earlier and often less successful designs. Various implants for revision knee surgery have become available. Revision condylar-type replacements, semiconstrained hinged implants, and constrained hinged implants are all currently being employed for revision knee surgery [1–3]. Each of these prostheses attempts to address the surgical problems regarding revision, including massive loss of bone and ligamentous instability. The surgeon can select an appropriate prosthesis for each patient and each particular situation according to the bone loss and ligamentous stability encountered. Revising a condylar replacement usually presents few problems. However, revision of failed hinges frequently involves considerable loss of bone, instability, bone fractures, and infection. We reviewed cases in which revision was done one, two, or three times to determine the indications for a new revision strategy.


Femoral Component Tibial Component High Tibial Osteotomy Ultrahigh Molecular Weight Polyethylene Intramedullary Fixation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Goldberg VM, Figgie MP, Figgie HE III, Sobel M (1988) The results of revision total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 226: 86–92PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sculco TP (1989) Total condylar III prosthesis in ligament instability. Orthop Clin North Am 20: 221–226PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Shaw JA, Balcom W, Greer RB III (1989) Total knee arthoplasty using the kinematic rotating hinge prosthesis. Orthopedics 12: 647–654PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Grimer RJ, Karpinski MRK, Edwards AN (1984) The long-term results of Stanmore total knee replacements. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 66: 55–62Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Huiskes R, Heck JV, Walker PS, Green DJ, Nunamaker D (1980) A three dimensional stress analysis of a new finger-joint prosthesis fixation system. In: Simon BR (ed) International conference on finite dements in biomechanics, vol 2. University of Arizona College of Engineering, Tucson, pp 749–762Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Okada Y, Suka T, Gorski JP, Kelly PJ, Chao EYS (1986) Extracortical fixation of cemented porous coated segmental prostheses (Abstr). Orthop Trans 10: 393–393Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. E. InglisJr.
  • P. S. Walker

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations