Suscribirse

Extraction of total knee arthroplasty intramedullary stem extensions - 29/01/20

Doi : 10.1016/j.otsr.2019.05.025 
Gilles Jean Marie Pasquier a, , Denis Huten b, Harold Common b, Henri Migaud a, Sophie Putman a
a Service de chirurgie orthopédique, hôpital Roger-Salengro, rue Emile-Laine, 59037 Lille, France 
b Service de chirurgie orthopédique et traumatologique, CHU de Rennes-Pontchaillou, 2, rue Henri-Le-Guilloux, 35033 Rennes, France 

Corresponding author at: Service d’Orthopédie II, hôpital Roger Salengro, CHRU de Lille, rue Emile-Laine, 59037 Lille cedex, France.Service d’Orthopédie II, hôpital Roger Salengro, CHRU de Lillerue Emile-LaineLille cedex59037France

Bienvenido a EM-consulte, la referencia de los profesionales de la salud.
Artículo gratuito.

Conéctese para beneficiarse!

Abstract

Intramedullary stem extensions will need to be extracted during total knee arthroplasty (TKA) revisions, especially repeated ones. These stems have various designs and lengths, can be straight or offset, cemented (partially or totally) or cementless, smooth or rough. This diversity adds to the difficult of extracting them, which the surgeon must anticipate before starting the revision procedure. Porous metaphyseal metal components (cones, sleeves) are being used increasingly during revision TKA. They pose specific extraction challenges and complicate the extraction of the stems with which they are often associated. The maneuvers used during extraction have a direct impact on the subsequent joint reconstruction methods. These procedures are always long and difficult, with an increased risk of bone-related complications (perforation, fracture) or infection. They must always be carried out at specialized centers by experienced surgeons. The reasons for re-revision are the same as those for TKA revision, mainly aseptic loosening, instability and infection—only the latter requires that all components be removed. The local conditions are often unfavorable: epiphyseal-metaphyseal bone defect, thin cortices, osteoporosis, and in some cases, stiffness. The type of implant to extract and its characteristics must be identified beforehand in case special instruments are needed. An imaging workup is done to specify the relationship of the stem with bone, quality of its fixation, bone lesions and gaps between stem and bone, knowing that extraction is harder when the gaps are smaller. A combination of extended radiolucent lines, purely metaphyseal fixation, and a thin smooth stem may mean that intramedullary extraction is feasible. The extensor mechanism must be released to achieve sufficient exposure. If a tibial tubercle osteotomy is needed, it must be sized to match the extraction. After disassembly of femoral and tibial components–which can be challenging–the epiphyseal components must be released. High performance instruments for cement extraction and metal cutting are essential. Other than simple cases (loosened or partially fixed implants), intramedullary extraction can be dangerous especially when the stem extension is well-fixed, whether cemented or not. A diaphyseal window may be sufficient, but in most cases, an extended osteotomy is needed. This includes detaching the tibial tubercle at the tibia. At the femur, this may require an anterior midline window, an anterior extended ostéotomy or an anterolateral oblique distal femoral osteotomy with fibrous hinge. The extraction of metaphyseal porous components is difficult. Their connection with the bone must be broken – which can be long and risky – before the associated stem is removed. While it is easier to extract when the stem can be removed first, it is not always feasible. Reconstruction depends intimately on the methods used to extract the existing implants. Any diaphyseal discontinuity must be bridged (long stem or plate). The extent of the resulting bone defect after extraction drives the revision methods, which are simplified by using porous metaphyseal metal components and shorter stems when possible.

El texto completo de este artículo está disponible en PDF.

Keywords : Total knee arthroplasty, Revision, Intramedullary stem extensions


Esquema


© 2019  Publicado por Elsevier Masson SAS.
Añadir a mi biblioteca Eliminar de mi biblioteca Imprimir
Exportación

    Exportación citas

  • Fichero

  • Contenido

Vol 106 - N° 1S

P. S135-S147 - février 2020 Regresar al número
Artículo precedente Artículo precedente
  • Pelvic fractures in children (pelvic ring and acetabulum)
  • Jean-Marc Guillaume, Sébastien Pesenti, Jean-Luc Jouve, Franck Launay
| Artículo siguiente Artículo siguiente
  • Anterior lumbar fusion techniques: ALIF, OLIF, DLIF, LLIF, IXLIF
  • Jérôme Allain, Thierry Dufour

Bienvenido a EM-consulte, la referencia de los profesionales de la salud.

Mi cuenta


Declaración CNIL

EM-CONSULTE.COM se declara a la CNIL, la declaración N º 1286925.

En virtud de la Ley N º 78-17 del 6 de enero de 1978, relativa a las computadoras, archivos y libertades, usted tiene el derecho de oposición (art.26 de la ley), el acceso (art.34 a 38 Ley), y correcta (artículo 36 de la ley) los datos que le conciernen. Por lo tanto, usted puede pedir que se corrija, complementado, clarificado, actualizado o suprimido información sobre usted que son inexactos, incompletos, engañosos, obsoletos o cuya recogida o de conservación o uso está prohibido.
La información personal sobre los visitantes de nuestro sitio, incluyendo su identidad, son confidenciales.
El jefe del sitio en el honor se compromete a respetar la confidencialidad de los requisitos legales aplicables en Francia y no de revelar dicha información a terceros.


Todo el contenido en este sitio: Copyright © 2024 Elsevier, sus licenciantes y colaboradores. Se reservan todos los derechos, incluidos los de minería de texto y datos, entrenamiento de IA y tecnologías similares. Para todo el contenido de acceso abierto, se aplican los términos de licencia de Creative Commons.