Short to medium term functional and clinical results for the contemporary condylar knee revision system
Author(s):
Ambrose Alissa (United Kingdom)
,
Ambrose Alissa (United Kingdom)
Affiliations:
Hassaballa M.
,
Hassaballa M.
Affiliations:
Murray J.
,
Murray J.
Affiliations:
Porteous A.
,
Porteous A.
Affiliations:
Howells N.
,
Howells N.
Affiliations:
Bridgwater Hannah
Bridgwater Hannah
Affiliations:
ESSKA Academy. Ambrose A. 05/09/18; 209634; P11-2002 Topic: H2 - Single-stage revision
Ms. Alissa Ambrose
Ms. Alissa Ambrose
Login now to access Regular content available to all registered users.

You can access free regular educational content on the ESSKA Academy by registering as an 'ESSKA Academy User’ here

Access to Premium content is currently a membership benefit.

Click here to join ESSKA or renew your membership.
Abstract
Discussion Forum (0)
Rate & Comment (0)
Objectives: To assess the change in American Knee
Scores following a first revision surgery using a
contemporary condylar knee system.
To assess whether this improvement varied based on
indication for revision.

Methods: This is a prospective study of patients who
underwent a first revision knee surgery using a
contemporary condylar knee system. Clinical and
functional assessments using the American Knee Score
were carried out preoperatively, one year, two years and
five. The reason for revision was documented
preoperatively in clinic notes.

Results: 340 patients underwent revision to a legion
prosthesis- 167 male: 173 females with a mean age of 75
(47-98 yrs). We had a 1-year, 2-year and 5-year follow
up for 240, 194 and 91 patients respectively. Surgery was
carried out at a single centre and performed by members
of the knee group.
Indications for surgery in these patients were: aseptic
loosening (155), septic loosening (47), instability (37),
malalignment (74), stiffness (10), progression of
Osteoarthritis (13) and periprosthetic fracture (6).
The median American Knee scores pre-operatively (82)
compared to 1 year follow up (148), 2 year follow up
(144) and 5 year follow up (141) were significantly
improved (p<0.05). It was also noted that improvements
between pre-operative and 1-year post-operative scores
were significantly different based on reason for revision
(p<0.05).

Conclusions: The short- medium term results using a
Contemporary Condylar Knee revision system showed
significant improvement in functional and pain scores in
these patients. However, this improvement was
significantly different based on reason for revision.

Objectives: To assess the change in American Knee
Scores following a first revision surgery using a
contemporary condylar knee system.
To assess whether this improvement varied based on
indication for revision.

Methods: This is a prospective study of patients who
underwent a first revision knee surgery using a
contemporary condylar knee system. Clinical and
functional assessments using the American Knee Score
were carried out preoperatively, one year, two years and
five. The reason for revision was documented
preoperatively in clinic notes.

Results: 340 patients underwent revision to a legion
prosthesis- 167 male: 173 females with a mean age of 75
(47-98 yrs). We had a 1-year, 2-year and 5-year follow
up for 240, 194 and 91 patients respectively. Surgery was
carried out at a single centre and performed by members
of the knee group.
Indications for surgery in these patients were: aseptic
loosening (155), septic loosening (47), instability (37),
malalignment (74), stiffness (10), progression of
Osteoarthritis (13) and periprosthetic fracture (6).
The median American Knee scores pre-operatively (82)
compared to 1 year follow up (148), 2 year follow up
(144) and 5 year follow up (141) were significantly
improved (p<0.05). It was also noted that improvements
between pre-operative and 1-year post-operative scores
were significantly different based on reason for revision
(p<0.05).

Conclusions: The short- medium term results using a
Contemporary Condylar Knee revision system showed
significant improvement in functional and pain scores in
these patients. However, this improvement was
significantly different based on reason for revision.

Code of conduct/disclaimer available in General Terms & Conditions

By clicking “Accept Terms & all Cookies” or by continuing to browse, you agree to the storing of third-party cookies on your device to enhance your user experience and agree to the user terms and conditions of this learning management system (LMS).

Cookie Settings
Accept Terms & all Cookies