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 86-B, Issue 2, 195-199.
doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.86B2.13564  
Copyright © 2004 by British Editorial Society of Bone and Joint Surgery
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow FrenchSpanishItalianRomanianPolish
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 Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Patel, J. V.
Right arrow Articles by Rorabeck, C. H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Patel, J. V.
Right arrow Articles by Rorabeck, C. H.

The fate of augments to treat type-2 bone defects in revision knee arthroplasty

J. V. Patel, BM FRCS (Tr and Orth), Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon; J. L. Masonis, MD, Attending Orthopaedic Surgeon; J. Guerin, BMath, Research Director; R. B. Bourne, MD, FRCS C, Professor Orthopaedic Surgery; and C. H. Rorabeck, MD FRCS C, Professor of Orthopaedic Surgery

Division of Orthopaedics, London Health Sciences Center, University of Western Ontario, 339 Windermere Road, London, Ontario N6A 5A5, Canada.

Correspondence should be sent to Mr J. V. Patel at the Department of Orthopaedics, The Middlesex Hospital, Mortimer Street, London W1T 3AA, UK.

We report the five- to-ten year results of Anderson Orthopaedic Research Institute type-2 bone defects treated with modular metal augments in revision knee surgery.

A total of 102 revision knee arthroplasties in patients with type-2 defects treated with augments and stems were prospectively studied. Seven patients (seven knees) had incomplete follow-up and 15 patients (16 knees) died with the arthroplasty in situ. The mean follow-up of the 79 remaining knees was 7 ± 2 years (5 to 11). The presence of non-progressive radiolucent lines around the augment in 14% of knees was not associated with poorer knee scores, the range of movement, survival of the component or the type of insert which was used (p > 0.05). The survival of the components was 92 ± 0.03% at 11 years (95% CI, 10.3 to 11.2).

We recommend the use of modular augmentation devices to treat type-2 defects in revision knee surgery.






(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