Abstract
Rotating-hinge knee implants are used for revision total knee arthroplasty in patients with severe ligament instability and bone loss. This study evaluated the outcomes of a series of rotating-hinge knees.
Thirty-one NexGen Rotating Hinge Knees (Zimmer, Warsaw, Indiana) were implanted in 29 patients (2 bilateral), with an average age of 72.8 years. Indications for surgery were aseptic loosening (n=23), septic loosenings (n=4), tibiofemoral instability (n=3), and wear (n=1). The Hospital for Special Surgery Knee Score and the Knee Society Roentgenographic Evaluation System were used. Statistical and cumulative survival rate analyses were performed. Average follow-up was 60.3 months (range, 32–100 months). The Hospital for Special Surgery Knee Score results indicated statistically significant improvement; the total score increased from 65.5 preoperatively to 88.4 postoperatively. Average range of motion increased from 90.9° preoperatively to 114.4° postoperatively. Radiographs showed no periprosthetic bone fractures or implant ruptures. Radiolucent lines were found in 20 of 26 patients and were progressive in 2 (both revised). Complications occurred in 10 patients.
The rigidity of the hinge may be associated with a risk of aseptic loosening due to the increased stress transfer to the bone from the prosthesis through the locked hinge. Rotating-hinge knee implants provided acceptable mid-term outcomes for revision knee surgery with ligamentous instability. They are not at higher risk for early loosening unless short tibial stems are used. The high percentage of failures is more related to the complex surgery and to the status of the patients than to the hinged mechanism.
- 1.Barrack RL. Evolution of the rotating hinge for complex total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001; 392:292–299.
10.1097/00003086-200111000-00038 > CrossrefGoogle Scholar - 2.Pour AE, Parvizi J, Slenker N, Purtill JJ, Sharkey PF. Rotating hinged total knee replacement: use with caution. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007; 89(8):1735–1741.
10.2106/JBJS.F.00893 > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar - 3.Sculco TP. The role of constraint in total knee arthroplasty [published online ahead of print April 17, 2006]. J Arthroplasty. 2006; 21(4 suppl 1):54–56.
10.1016/j.arth.2006.02.166 > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar - 4.Deehan DJ, Murray J, Birdsall PD, Holland JP, Pinder IM. The role of the rotating hinge prosthesis in the salvage arthroplasty setting [published online ahead of print March 4, 2008]. J Arthroplasty. 2008; 23(5):683–688.
10.1016/j.arth.2007.05.055 > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar - 5.Joshi N, Navarro-Quilis A. Is there a place for rotating-hinge arthroplasty in knee revision surgery for aseptic loosening [published online ahead of print April 14, 2011]?J Arthroplasty. 2008; 23(8):1204–1211.
10.1016/j.arth.2007.10.016 > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar - 6.Barrack RL, Lyons TR, Ingraham RQ, Johnson JC. The use of a modular rotating hinge component in salvage revision total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2000; 15(7):858–866.
10.1054/arth.2000.9056 > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar - 7.Guenoun B, Latargez L, Freslon M, Defossez G, Salas N, Gayet LE. Complications following rotating hinge Endo-Modell (Link) knee arthroplasty [published online ahead of print October 17, 2009]. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2009; 95(7):529–536.
10.1016/j.otsr.2009.07.013 > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar - 8.Rand JA, Chao EY, Stauffer RN. Kinematic rotating-hinge total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1987; 69(4):489–497. > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
- 9.Engh GA, Ammeen DJ. Bone loss with revision total knee arthroplasty: defect classification and alternatives for reconstruction. Instr Course Lect. 1999; 48:167–175. > MedlineGoogle Scholar
- 10.Engh GA, Parks NL. The management of bone defects in revision total knee arthroplasty. Instr Course Lect. 1997; 46:227–236. > MedlineGoogle Scholar
- 11.Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD, Scott WN. Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989; (248):13–14. > MedlineGoogle Scholar
- 12.Ewald FC. The Knee Society total knee arthroplasty roentgenographic evaluation and scoring system. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989; 248:9–12. > CrossrefGoogle Scholar
- 13.Walker PS, Manktelow AR. Comparison between a constrained condylar and a rotating hinge in revision knee surgery. Knee. 2001; 8(4):269–279.
10.1016/S0968-0160(01)00121-1 > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar - 14.Lombardi AV, Mallory TH, Eberle RW. Constrained knee arthroplasty. In: , ed. The Knee. St Louis, MO: CV Mosby; 1994:1305. > Google Scholar
- 15.Westrich GH, Mollano AV, Sculco TP, Buly RL, Laskin RS, Windsor R. Rotating hinge total knee arthroplasty in severely affected knees. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2000; (379):195–208.
10.1097/00003086-200010000-00023 > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar - 16.Neumann DR, Hofstaedter T, Dorn U. Follow-up of a modular rotating hinge knee system in salvage revision total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. [published online ahead of print October 12, 2011]. > Google Scholar
- 17.Hui FC, Fitzgerald RH. Hinged total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Sur Am. 1980; 62(4):513–519. > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
- 18.Wang CJ, Wang HE. Early catastrophic failure of rotating hinge total knee prosthesis. J Arthroplasty. 2000; 15:387–391.
10.1016/S0883-5403(00)90877-5 > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar - 19.Gudnason A, Milbrink J, Hailer NP. Implant survival and outcome after rotating-hinge total knee revision arthroplasty: a minimum 6-year follow-up [published online ahead of print June 9, 2011]. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2011; 131(11):1601–1607.
10.1007/s00402-011-1330-5 > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar - 20.Haddad FS, Masri BA, Campbell D, McGraw RW, Beauchamp CP, Duncan CP. The PROSTALAC functional spacer in two-stage revision for infected knee replacements. Prosthesis of antibiotic-loaded acrylic cement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2000; 82(6):807–812.
10.1302/0301-620X.82B6.10486 > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar - 21.Cuckler JM. The infected total knee: management options. J Arthroplasty. 2005; 20(4 suppl 2):33–36.
10.1016/j.arth.2005.03.004 > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
