Logo of The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery (Br)
Quick search:        
          Advanced Search
Guest Access | Sign In
Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery - British Volume, Vol 85-B, Issue 3, 393-398.
doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.85B3.13041  
Copyright © 2003 by British Editorial Society of Bone and Joint Surgery
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow My Folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Siddique, M. S.
Right arrow Articles by Pinder, I. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Siddique, M. S.
Right arrow Articles by Pinder, I. M.

Role of abrasion of the femoral component in revision knee arthroplasty

M. S. Siddique, MCh Orth, FRCS Orth, Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon1; M. C. Rao, MRCS Ed, Specialist Registrar2; D. J. Deehan, MD, FRCS Orth, Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon1; and I. M. Pinder, FRCS, Emeritus Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon1

1 Department of Orthopaedics, Freeman Hospital, High Heaton, Newcastle upon Tyne NE7 7DN, UK.
2 Department of Orthopaedics, Ysbyty Gwynedd Hospital, Bangor, North Wales LL57 2PW, UK.

Correpondence should be sent to Mr M. C. Rao.

We carried out 60 revision procedures for failed porous coated anatomic total knee replacements in 54 patients, which were divided into two groups. The 14 knees in group I had a well-fixed femoral component at surgery which was retained, and in the 46 knees in group II both tibial and femoral components were loose and were revised using a variety of implants. Our review comprised clinical and radiological assessment.

A total of 13 knees required a second revision. Six (42%) in group I failed very early (mean 2.1 years) when compared with seven (15%) in group II (mean 6.8 years). Failure was due to wear of the polyethylene insert by the abraded, retained femoral component (crude odds ratio 4.07; 95% CI 1.07 to 15.5). We recommend a complete change of primary bearing surfaces at the time of revision of an uncemented total knee replacement in order to prevent early wear of polyethylene.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J Bone Joint Surg BrHome page
S. D. Muller, D. J. Deehan, J. P. Holland, S. E. Outterside, L. M. G. Kirk, P. J. Gregg, and A. W. McCaskie
Should we reconsider all-polyethylene tibial implants in total knee replacement?
J Bone Joint Surg Br, December 1, 2006; 88-B(12): 1596 - 1602.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J Bone Joint Surg BrHome page
A. Lakdawala, S. Todo, and G. Scott
The significance of surface changes on retrieved femoral components after total knee replacement
J Bone Joint Surg Br, June 1, 2005; 87-B(6): 796 - 799.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


(c) British Editorial Society of Bone and Joint Surgery All Rights Reserved
Registered charity no: 209299     Print ISSN: 0301-620X
Hip, Knee, Trauma, Upper limb, Foot & Ankle, Paediatrics, Oncology, Spine, Arthroplasty, General