The Role of Constraint in Revision Total Knee Replacement for Instability: Full Component Revision Vs Isolated Polyethylene Exchange in Selected Patients.

Overview

abstract

BACKGROUND: Instability is a common indication for revision after total knee arthroplasty. Replacement of multiple components is the current standard, but isolated polyethylene liner exchange (IPE) may present a less-morbid alternative. This study aims to determine (1) whether IPE results in similar rerevision frequency to component revision in select patients with symptomatic instability and (2) the effect of increasing constraint on the outcome. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 117 patients revised for symptomatic total knee arthroplasty instability from January 2016 to December 2017. The component revision (60 patients) or IPE (57 patients) cohorts were further stratified based on whether constraint was increased or not. The primary objective was to compare rerevision rates 2 years after component revision vs IPE. The secondary objectives consisted of evaluating reasons for rerevision, preoperative and postoperative patient-reported outcome measures, and range of motion. RESULTS: The rerevision rate was 18%, with no statistical difference between component and IPE cohorts. Cases where level of constraint increased due to revision, a significantly lower rate of rerevision was detected (9 of 77) (12%) than in cases where constraint did not increase (12 of 39) (31%) (P=0.012). This association was also noted in the component revision cohort but not in the IPE cohort (P=0.011). CONCLUSIONS: Rerevision occurred at similar frequencies 2 years after IPE or component revision for total knee arthroplasty instability. For component revision, increased constraint was associated with significantly fewer rerevisions.