Revisionsendoprothetik des Kniegelenks

Zusammenfassung

Die Kombination aus steigender Lebenserwartung, Zunahme der Risikofaktoren für eine Gonarthrose gepaart mit hohem funktionellem Anspruch bis ins hohe Lebensalter führt zu einer Zunahme der Implantationszahlen primärer Knieendoprothesen. Folglich nimmt auch die Häufigkeit von Revisionseingriffen drastisch zu. Klare Konzepte sind notwendig, um gute Ergebnisse zu erzielen. Dieser Artikel gibt einen Überblick über die aktuellen Strategien der Revisionsendoprothetik des Kniegelenks.

Abstract

In addition to periprosthetic infections (PJI), the reconstruction of bony defects is the major challenge of revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Infection should be ruled out in all cases prior to operation. Revision TKA requires intensive planning with regard to the needed augmentation possibilities and the stems to be used. The sole biological reconstruction of major defects (AORI II and III) shows high failure rates. Large defects must be augmented by metal (wedges/sleeves/cones). The concept of zonal anchorage (3-zone model) with a stable anchorage in 2 out of 3 zones as close to the joint as possible is currently the standard. According to the model, metaphysis (zone 2) is an increasingly important factor for long-term stable anchoring. The use of cones or sleeves seems to significantly improve the results of revision TKA. The anchorage in zone 3 via stems is still mandatory. Cemented metaphysary anchoring and cement-free diaphysary anchoring stems are available, whereby no clear recommendation for a principle can be given.

Schlüsselwörter

Revisionsendoprothetik - Knie - Defektaufbau

Key words

revision total knee arthroplasty - bony defects - reconstruction

• Literatur

• 1 Evans JT, Walker RW, Evans JP. et al. How long does a knee replacement last? A systematic review and meta-analysis of case series and national registry reports with more than 15 years of follow-up. Lancet 2019; 393: 655-663 doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32531-5
• 2 Inacio MCS, Paxton EW, Graves SE. et al. Projected increase in total knee arthroplasty in the United States – an alternative projection model. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2017; 25: 1797-1803 doi:10.1016/j.joca.2017.07.022
• 3 Inacio MCS, Graves SE, Pratt NL. et al. Increase in Total Joint Arthroplasty Projected from 2014 to 2046 in Australia: A conservative local model with international implications. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2017; 475: 2130-2137 doi:10.1007/s11999-017-5377-7
• 4 Patel A, Pavlou G, Mújica-Mota RE. et al. The epidemiology of revision total knee and hip arthroplasty in England and Wales: a comparative analysis with projections for the United States. A study using the National Joint Registry Dataset. Bone Joint J 2015; 97-B: 1076-1081 doi:10.1302/0301-620X.97B8.35170
• 5 Thiele K, Perka C, Matziolis G. et al. Current failure mechanisms after knee arthroplasty have changed: polyethylene wear is less common in revision surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2015; 97: 715-720 doi:10.2106/JBJS.M.01534
• 6 Slevin O, Schmid FA, Schiapparelli F-F. et al. Coronal femoral TKA position significantly influences in vivo patellar loading in unresurfaced patellae after primary total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2017; 25: 3605-3610 doi:10.1007/s00167-017-4627-2
• 7 Wellenberg RHH, Hakvoort ET, Slump CH. et al. Metal artifact reduction techniques in musculoskeletal CT-imaging. Eur J Radiol 2018; 107: 60-69 doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2018.08.010
• 8 Math KR, Zaidi SF, Petchprapa C. et al. Imaging of total knee arthroplasty. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 2006; 10: 47-63 doi:10.1055/s-2006-934216
• 9 Gulati A, Chau R, Pandit HG. et al. The incidence of physiological radiolucency following Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement and its relationship to outcome. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2009; 91: 896-902 doi:10.1302/0301-620X.91B7.21914
• 10 Niccoli G, Mercurio D, Cortese F. Bone scan in painful knee arthroplasty: obsolete or actual examination?. Acta Biomed 2017; 88: 68-77 doi:10.23750/abm.v88i2-S.6516
• 11 Koob S, Gaertner FC, Jansen TR. et al. Diagnosis of peri-prosthetic loosening of total hip and knee arthroplasty using ¹⁸F-Fluoride PET/CT. Oncotarget 2019; 10: 2203-2211 doi:10.18632/oncotarget.26762
• 12 Solomon LB, Stamenkov RB, MacDonald AJ. et al. Imaging periprosthetic osteolysis around total knee arthroplasties using a human cadaver model. J Arthroplasty 2012; 27: 1069-1074 doi:10.1016/j.arth.2011.09.012
• 13 Heyse TJ, Chong LR, Davis J. et al. MRI analysis of the component-bone interface after TKA. Knee 2012; 19: 290-294 doi:10.1016/j.knee.2011.05.011
• 14 Thiele K, Fussi J, Perka C, Pfitzner T. Berliner diagnostischer Algorithmus der schmerzhaften Knie-TEP. Orthopade 2016; 45: 38-46 doi:10.1007/s00132-015-3196-7
• 15 Parvizi J, Gehrke T, Chen AF. Proceedings of the International Consensus on Periprosthetic Joint Infection. Bone Joint J 2013; 95-B: 1450-1452 doi:10.1302/0301-620X.95B11.33135
• 16 Parvizi J, Zmistowski B, Berbari EF. et al. New definition for periprosthetic joint infection: from the Workgroup of the Musculoskeletal Infection Society. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2011; 469: 2992-2994 doi:10.1007/s11999-011-2102-9
• 17 Parvizi J, Tan TL, Goswami K. et al. The 2018 Definition of Periprosthetic Hip and Knee Infection: An Evidence-Based and Validated Criteria. J Arthroplasty 2018; 33: 1309-1314.e2 doi:10.1016/j.arth.2018.02.078
• 18 Ochsner PE, Borens O, Bodler P-M, Broger I, Eich G, Hefti F, Maurer T, Notzli H, Seiler S, Suva D, Trampuz A, Uckay IVogt M, Zimmerli W. Infections of the Musculoskeletal System: Basic Principles, Prevention, Diagnosis and Treatment. Grandvaux, Schweiz: swiss orthopaedics in-house publisher; 2016
• 19 Osmon DR, Berbari EF, Berendt AR. et al. Executive Summary: Diagnosis and Management of Prosthetic Joint Infection: Clinical Practice Guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of Americaa. Clin Infect Dis 2013; 56: 1-10 doi:10.1093/cid/cis966
• 20 Walter G, Gramlich Y. Periprothetische Infektionen. In: Engelhardt M, Raschke MJ. Hrsg. Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2019: 1-15
• 21 Zonnenberg CBL, Lisowski LA, van den Bekerom MPJ. et al. Tuberositas osteotomy for total knee arthroplasty: a review of the literature. J Knee Surg 2010; 23: 121-129 doi:10.1055/s-0030-1267472
• 22 Meek RMD, Greidanus NV, McGraw RW. et al. The extensile rectus snip exposure in revision of total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2003; 85: 1120-1122 doi:10.1302/0301-620X.85B8.14214
• 23 Stevens J, Clement ND, Patton JT. The Extensile Medial Parapatellar Approach to the Distal Femur and Knee: Anatomic Landmarks and Surgical Technique. Techniques in Orthopaedics 2019; 34: 129-133 doi:10.1097/BTO.0000000000000307
• 24 Engh GA, Ammeen DJ. Bone loss with revision total knee arthroplasty: defect classification and alternatives for reconstruction. Instr Course Lect 1999; 48: 167-175
• 25 Morgan-Jones R, Oussedik SIS, Graichen H. et al. Zonal fixation in revision total knee arthroplasty. Bone Joint J 2015; 97-B: 147-149 doi:10.1302/0301-620X.97B2.34144
• 26 Panegrossi G, Ceretti M, Papalia M. et al. Bone loss management in total knee revision surgery. Int Orthop 2014; 38: 419-427 doi:10.1007/s00264-013-2262-1
• 27 Sentürk U, Perka C. [Fixation Techniques in Revision TKA with Poor Bone Conditions. Bone, Cement, Stem, Sleeve, or Cone?]. Z Orthop Unfall 2018; 156: 711-717 doi:10.1055/a-0630-2802
• 28 Bauman RD, Lewallen DG, Hanssen AD. Limitations of structural allograft in revision total knee Arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2009; 467: 818-824 doi:10.1007/s11999-008-0679-4
• 29 Hilgen V, Citak M, Vettorazzi E. et al. 10-year results following impaction bone grafting of major bone defects in 29 rotational and hinged knee revision arthroplasties. Acta Orthop 2013; 84: 387-391 doi:10.3109/17453674.2013.814012
• 30 Completo A, Duarte R, Fonseca F. et al. Biomechanical evaluation of different reconstructive techniques of proximal tibia in revision total knee arthroplasty: An in-vitro and finite element analysis. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 2013; 28: 291-298 doi:10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2012.12.009
• 31 Graichen H, Strauch M, Scior W. et al. [Knee revisison arthroplasty: cementless, metaphyseal fixation with sleeves]. Oper Orthop Traumatol 2015; 27: 24-34 doi:10.1007/s00064-014-0333-0
• 32 Agarwal S, Neogi DS, Morgan-Jones R. Metaphyseal sleeves in revision total knee arthroplasty: Minimum seven-year follow-up study. Knee 2018; 25: 1299-1307 doi:10.1016/j.knee.2018.09.010
• 33 Stefani G. et al. Revision total knee arthroplasty with metaphyseal sleeves without stem: Short-term results. Joints 2017; 5: 207-211 doi:10.1055/s-0037-1607427
• 34 Gøttsche D, Lind T, Christiansen T. et al. Cementless metaphyseal sleeves without stem in revision total knee arthroplasty. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2016; 136: 1761-1766 doi:10.1007/s00402-016-2583-9
• 35 Bonanzinga T, Gehrke T, Zahar A. et al. Are trabecular metal cones a valid option to treat metaphyseal bone defects in complex primary and revision knee arthroplasty?. Joints 2017; 6: 58-64 doi:10.1055/s-0037-1608950
• 36 Denehy KM, Abhari S, Krebs VE. et al. Metaphyseal Fixation Using Highly Porous Cones in Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty: Minimum Two Year Follow Up Study. J Arthroplasty 2019; 34: 2439-2443 doi:10.1016/j.arth.2019.03.045
• 37 Haidukewych GJ, Hanssen A, Jones R. Metaphyseal fixation in revision total knee arthroplasty: Indications and techniques. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2011; 19: 311-318 doi:10.5435/00124635-201106000-00001
• 38 Staats K, Vertesich K, Sigmund IK. et al. Does a Competing Risk Analysis Show Differences in the Cumulative Incidence of Revision Surgery Between Patients with Oncologic and Non-oncologic Conditions After Distal Femur Replacement?. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2020; 478: 1062-1073 doi:10.1097/CORR.0000000000001106
• 39 Patel AR, Barlow B, Ranawat AS. Stem length in revision total knee arthroplasty. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 2015; 8: 407-412 doi:10.1007/s12178-015-9297-4