J Korean Orthop Assoc.  2008 Feb;43(1):72-77. 10.4055/jkoa.2008.43.1.72.

Clinical Outcome after Septic versus Aseptic Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty

• Ha CW
• Moon JS

• KMID: 2106419
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4055/jkoa.2008.43.1.72

Abstract

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of septic and aseptic revision total knee arthroplasty.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This study compared the clinical and radiographic results of 12 septic and 10 aseptic revisions. All septic revisions were treated with two-stage reimplantation using an articulating cement spacer. The range of motion, Knee Society score, WOMAC score, and radiographic results of the American Knee Society were assessed.
RESULTS
The preoperative data, which included the average range of motion, Knee Society score, WOMAC score and femoro-tibial angle, were similar in both groups. At the final follow-up, the average range of motion was similar in the two groups: 102.5degrees in the septic revisions, and 114.5degrees in the aseptic revisions (p=0.070). In addition, the Knee Society score, WOMAC score and femoro-tibial angle were similar in both groups. There was no loosening or failure of either component observed in any case. A patellar tendon rupture was observed in one septic revision after surgery.
CONCLUSION
Two-stage reimplantation using an articulating cement spacer in septic revisions could achieve functional results that are compatible to aseptic revisions.

Keyword

Septic; Aseptic; Revision; Total knee arthroplasty

MeSH Terms

Arthroplasty
Follow-Up Studies
Knee
Patellar Ligament
Range of Motion, Articular
Replantation
Rupture

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 Photographs of the articulating cement spacer. Excellent reproduction of the articular geometry was possible using a previously made mold application over the antibiotics-impregnated bone cement. Therefore, joint congruity and stability could be reproduced in flexion (A) and extension (B).

Reference

1. Bae DK, Yoon KH, Kim HS, Song SJ, Yi JW, Kim YC. The results of revision total knee arthroplasty. J Korean Orthop Assoc. 2003. 38:689–694.

2. Bare J, MacDonald SJ, Bourne RB. Preoperative evaluations in revision total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006. 446:40–44.

3. Barrack RL, Engh G, Rorabeck C, Sawhney J, Woolfrey M. Patient satisfaction and outcome after septic versus aseptic revision total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2000. 15:990–993.

4. Choi CH, Kang SK, Lee BK, Chung HK. The results of revision total knee replacement arthroplasty. J Korean Knee Soc. 2004. 16:51–58.

5. Della Valle CJ, Berger RA, Rosenberg AG. Surgical exposures in revision total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006. 446:59–68.

6. Durbhakula SM, Czajka J, Fuchs MD, Uhl RL. Antibiotic-loaded articulating cement spacer in the 2-stage exchange of infected total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2004. 19:768–774.

7. Emerson RH Jr, Muncie M, Tarbox TR, Higgins LL. Comparison of a static with a mobile spacer in total knee infection. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2002. 404:132–138.

8. Ewald FC. The Knee Society total knee arthroplasty roentgenographic evaluation and scoring system. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989. 248:9–12.

9. Fehring TK, Odum S, Calton TF, Mason JB. Articulating versus static spacers in revision total knee arthroplasty for sepsis. The Ranawat Award. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2000. 380:9–16.

10. Goldman RT, Scuderi GR, Insall JN. 2-stage reimplantation for infected total knee replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996. 331:118–124.

11. Goldstein WM, Kopplin M, Wall R, Berland K. Temporary articulating methylmethacrylate antibiotic spacer (TAMMAS). A new method of intraoperative manufacturing of a custom articulating spacer. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001. 83:Suppl 2 Pt. 92–97.

12. Ha CW. A technique for intraoperative construction of antibiotic spacers. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006. 445:204–209.

13. Ha CW, Awe SI. Two stage revision using custom articulating spacer in an infected TKA: a novel method for an intraoperative construction of an articulating spacer. J Korean Orthop Assoc. 2005. 40:409–417.

14. Hanssen AD, Rand JA, Osmon DR. Treatment of the infected total knee arthroplasty with insertion of another prosthesis. The effect of antibiotic-impregnated bone cement. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994. 309:44–55.

15. Hofmann AA, Goldberg T, Tanner AM, Kurtin SM. Treatment of infected total knee arthroplasty using an articulating spacer: 2- to 12-year experience. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005. 430:125–131.

16. Hwang SC, Cho SH, Jeong ST, Yune YP, Hwang IH. Clinical outcomes of infective and non-infective groups in revision total knee. J Korean Knee Soc. 2005. 17:91–98.

17. Insall JN, Thompson FM, Brause BD. Two-stage reimplantation for the salvage of infected total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1983. 65:1087–1098.

18. Mulhall KJ, Ghomorawi HM, Scully S, Callaghan JJ, Saleh KJ. Current etiologies and modes of failure in total knee arthroplasty revision. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006. 446:45–50.

19. Windsor RE, Insall JN, Urs WK, Miller DV, Brause BD. Two-stage reimplantation for the salvage of total knee arthroplasty complicated by infection. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1990. 72:272–278.