Download PDF
J Knee Surg 2012; 25(01): 045-050
DOI: 10.1055/s-0031-1286198
Original Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Rotating Platform Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty

Wayne M. Goldstein
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Illinois Bone and Joint Institute, Morton Grove, Illinois
,
Alexander C. Gordon
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Illinois Bone and Joint Institute, Morton Grove, Illinois
,
Stephen Swope
2   Orthopaedics, DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., Warsaw, Indiana
,
Jill Branson
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Illinois Bone and Joint Institute, Morton Grove, Illinois
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

07 September 2010

18 June 2011

Publication Date:
26 September 2011 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Although revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) procedures are successful in relieving pain and restoring function in failed knees, long-term results are inferior to primary procedures. Mobile bearing (MB) revision knees can potentially improve functional performance. Clinical results of 44 MB rotating platform (RP) revision TKAs demonstrated mean knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score (KOOS) activity of daily living score of 77 2 years postoperatively. Clinical results were put into context through wear testing which demonstrated improved wear performance compared with fixed bearing (FB) revision knees. The RP construct is a good choice for revision TKA because it permits the surgeon to align the tray for fixation, not compromise rotation of the tibial insert, and reduce transmission of shear stresses to the bone, cement and implant interface, which is a known cause of failure.

Keywords

mobile bearing - knee arthroplasty - revision - outcome
 

  • References

  • 1 Kurtz S, Mowat F, Ong K, Chan N, Lau E, Halpern M. Prevalence of primary and revision total hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 1990 through 2002. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005; 87 (7) 1487-1497
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, Mowat F, Halpern M. Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007; 89 (4) 780-785
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Buechel Sr FF. Long-term followup after mobile-bearing total knee replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2002; 404 (404) 40-50
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Atwood SA, Currier JH, Mayor MB, Collier JP, Van Citters DW, Kennedy FE. Clinical wear measurement on low contact stress rotating platform knee bearings. J Arthroplasty 2008; 23 (3) 431-440
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Dennis DA, Komistek RD. Mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty: design factors in minimizing wear. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2006; 452: 70-77
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 ISO 14243–1:. Loading and displacement parameters for wear-testing machines with load control and corresponding environmental conditions for test. International Organization for Standardization 2002.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Metron G2 Scanning System (Metron Systems, Inc., Snoqualmie, WA). Available at: www.metronsys.com . Accessed August 15, 2011
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Suarez J, Griffin W, Springer B, Fehring T, Mason JB, Odum S. Why do revision knee arthroplasties fail?. J Arthroplasty 2008; 23 (6, Suppl 1) 99-103
    Google Scholar
  • 9 Komistek RD, Dennis DA, Mahfouz MR, Walker S, Outten J. In vivo polyethylene bearing mobility is maintained in posterior stabilized total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2004; 428 (428) 207-213
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Dennis DA, Komistek RD, Mahfouz MR, Outten JT, Sharma A. Mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty: do the polyethylene bearings rotate?. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2005; 440: 88-95
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar