Varus-valgus constraint in 416 revision total knee arthroplasties with cemented stems provides a reliable reconstruction with a low subsequent revision rate at early to mid-term review. (April 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Limberg, Afton K; Tibbo, Meagan E; Pagnano, Mark W; Perry, Kevin I; Hanssen, Arlen D; Abdel, Matthew P
• Is Part Of: Bone & joint journal. Volume 102B:Number 4(2020)
• Page Start: 458
• Page End: 462
• Publication Date: 2020-04
• Subjects: Varus-valgus constraint (VVC) -- Revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) -- Aseptic loosening -- Cemented stems -- Instability; Bones -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Joints -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Orthopedic surgery -- Periodicals; 617.47005
• DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.102B4.BJJ-2019-0719.R2
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2049-4394

Abstract

Abstract : Aims: Varus-valgus constrained (VVC) implants are often used during revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) to gain coronal plane stability. However, the increased mechanical torque applied to the bone-cement interface theoretically increases the risk of aseptic loosening. We assessed mid-term survivorship, complications, and clinical outcomes of a fixed-bearing VVC device in revision TKAs. Methods: A total of 416 consecutive revision TKAs (398 patients) were performed at our institution using a single fixed-bearing VVC TKA from 2007 to 2015. Mean age was 64 years (33 to 88) with 50% male (199). Index revision TKA diagnoses were: instability (n = 122, 29%), aseptic loosening (n = 105, 25%), and prosthetic joint infection (PJI) (n = 97, 23%). All devices were cemented on the epiphyseal surfaces. Femoral stems were used in 97% (n = 402) of cases, tibial stems in 95% (n = 394) of cases; all were cemented. In total, 93% (n = 389) of cases required a stemmed femoral and tibial component. Femoral cones were used in 29%, and tibial cones in 40%. Survivorship was assessed via competing risk analysis; clinical outcomes were determined using Knee Society Scores (KSSs) and range of movement (ROM). Mean follow-up was four years (2 to 10). Results: The five-year cumulative incidence of subsequent revision for aseptic loosening and instability were 2% (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.2 to 3, number at risk = 154) and 4% (95% CI 2 to 6, number at risk = 153), respectively. The five-year cumulative incidence of any subsequent revision was 14% (95% CI 10 to 18, number at risk = 150). Reasons for subsequent revision included PJI (n = 23, of whom 12 had previous PJI), instability (n = 13), and aseptic loosening (n = 11). The use of this implant without stems was found to be a significant risk factor for subsequent revision (hazard ratio (HR) 7.58 (95% CI 3.98 to 16.03); p = 0.007). KSS improved from 46 preoperatively to 81 at latest follow-up (p < 0.001). ROM improved from 96° prerevision to 108° at latest follow-up (p = 0.016). Conclusion: The cumulative incidence of subsequent revision for aseptic loosening and instability was very low at five years with this fixed-bearing VVC implant in revision TKAs. Routine use of cemented and stemmed components with targeted use of metaphyseal cones likely contributed to this low rate of aseptic loosening. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(4):458–462.