Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2023 Aug;62(Suppl3):98-105.
doi: 10.20471/acc.2023.62.s3.13.

HIGHER REVISION RATES AND ASEPTIC LOOSENING WITH POSTERIOR-STABILISED TOTAL KNEE ENDOPROSTHESIS COMPARED TO THE CRUCIATE-RETAINING TYPE OF THE SAME IMPLANT MODEL- A SINGLE-CENTRE RETROSPECTIVE STUDY ANALYSING 580 TOTAL KNEE ARTHROPLASTIES

Damjan Dimnjaković  1   2 , Jure Serdar  1 , Mislav Jelić  1   2 , Ivan Bohaček  1   2 , Domagoj Delimar  1   2
Affiliations
Comparative Study

HIGHER REVISION RATES AND ASEPTIC LOOSENING WITH POSTERIOR-STABILISED TOTAL KNEE ENDOPROSTHESIS COMPARED TO THE CRUCIATE-RETAINING TYPE OF THE SAME IMPLANT MODEL- A SINGLE-CENTRE RETROSPECTIVE STUDY ANALYSING 580 TOTAL KNEE ARTHROPLASTIES

Damjan Dimnjaković et al. Acta Clin Croat. 2023 Aug.

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the 4-year survivorship of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) of a single manufacturer and determine whether failure rates differ between the cruciate-retaining (CR) and the posterior-stabilised (PS) type of implant. In addition, possible causes of revision were analysed as well. A retrospective analysis of 580 TKAs, with either the CR or the PS type of the Biotech Future Knee endoprosthesis (BIOTECH GmbH, Garbsen-Berenbostel, Germany) was performed. The 4-year survivorship for revision of any cause in all cases was 89.14%, with aseptic loosening being the most common cause of revision (53.9%). Regarding the type of implant model, the revision rate was higher in the PS group compared to the CR group (13.7% to 8.0%, respectively, p=0.027). The Cox regression models suggested that the type of prosthesis was a significant predictor of the need for revision (HR, 0.442; 95% CI, 0.234-0.833). In conclusion, our study has shown higher revision rates with the PS implant type when compared to the CR implant type with a higher rate of aseptic loosening in the PS group. Further studies are needed to determine the cause of these results and to investigate whether the problem is specific to the implant.

Keywords: Aseptic loosening; Cruciate-retaining; Posterior-stabilised; Revision surgery; Total knee arthroplasty.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Disclosure of conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Kaplan-Meier survivorship estimates, using revision TKA for any reason as an endpoint, show the 4-year survivorship estimates 92.01% (95% confidence interval, 88.10-94.76) for the cruciate-retaining (CR) group and 86.30 (95% confidence interval, 81.69- 89.92) for the posterior-stabilised (PS) group. The log-rank Mantel Cox test revealed a statistically significant difference between the groups (p=0.028).
Figure 2
Figure 2
Extracted tibial prosthesis at the revision surgery due to aseptic loosening of the total knee endoprosthesis. The figure shows good bonding at the cement-bone area, while bonding failure is present at the implant-cement area.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Carr AJ, Robertsson O, Graves S, Price AJ, Arden NK, Judge A, et al. Knee replacement. Lancet. 2012;379(9823):1331–40. 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60752-6 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Argenson JN, Boisgard S, Parratte S, Descamps S, Bercovy M, Bonnevialle P, et al. Survival analysis of total knee arthroplasty at a minimum 10 years’ follow-up: a multicenter French nationwide study including 846 cases. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2013;99(4):385–90. 10.1016/j.otsr.2013.03.014 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Pietrzak J, Common H, Migaud H, Pasquier G, Girard J, Putman S. Have the frequency of and reasons for revision total knee arthroplasty changed since 2000? Comparison of two cohorts from the same hospital: 255 cases (2013-2016) and 68 cases (1991-1998). Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2019;105(4):639–45. 10.1016/j.otsr.2019.01.025 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Sharkey PF, Lichstein PM, Shen C, Tokarski AT, Parvizi J. Why are total knee arthroplasties failing today--has anything changed after 10 years? J Arthroplasty. 2014;29(9):1774–8. 10.1016/j.arth.2013.07.024 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bozic KJ, Kurtz SM, Lau E, Ong K, Chiu V, Vail TP, et al. The epidemiology of revision total knee arthroplasty in the United States. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468(1):45–51. 10.1007/s11999-009-0945-0 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources