Jaswin Sawhney

Joint line restoration after revision total knee arthroplasty.

In 99 patients, 107 knee replacements were revised in two centers by two surgeons using a single revision total knee arthroplasty system. A retrospective radiographic review of joint line position before and after revision total knee arthroplasty was made, and compared with the joint line position before primary knee arthroplasty. Prospectively collected Knee Society Clinical Rating Scores were correlated with radiographic findings. The joint line position in unreplaced knee replacements averaged 16 mm, and the joint line position in knee replacements before revision surgery averaged 17 mm. The joint line was elevated by the revision total knee arthroplasty in 85 of 107 knees (79%). After the revision total knee replacement, the joint line elevation averaged 24 mm. The Knee Society Clinical Rating Score after revision surgery averaged 131 points. If the joint line position was elevated more than 8 mm, the Knee Society Clinical Rating Score averaged 125 points, if the joint line was elevated less than 8 mm, the score averaged 141 points. Joint line elevation after revision total knee replacement is a problem. Excessive elevation may result in worse clinical outcomes. Distal femoral augments should be used more often and with greater thicknesses. Standard implants used for revision surgery should have increased distal dimensions.

Pain at the end of the stem after revision total knee arthroplasty.

A consecutive series of patients undergoing revision total knee arthroplasty was studied prospectively. Clinical and radiographic assessment was performed preoperatively, 6 and 12 months postoperatively, and annually thereafter. Evaluation consisted of a Knee Society clinical score and assessment of patient satisfaction. In addition, patients completed drawings of their lower extremity regarding the location and severity of the pain they experienced preoperatively and at minimum 2-year followup (mean, 36 months; range, 24-48 months). Pain that was localized to the diaphyseal region of the femur or tibia on the drawing was defined as pain at the end of the stem. Clinical, radiographic, and pain drawing data were completed for patients who had 66 of 78 revision total knee arthroplasties performed during the time of the study (85%). All procedures were performed with the same implant system and instrumentation and included fluted cobalt-chrome stems for all patients in whom the stem was implanted without cement and slightly underreamed (press fit). All femoral components had the surface cemented with the stems press fit. Sixteen of the tibial stems were cemented fully, whereas the remaining 50 tibial components were cemented on the surface only with the stems press fit. Localized pain at the end of the stem was present on the femoral side in seven of 66 patients (11%) and in seven of 50 patients with press fit tibial stems (14%). Patients with pain at the end of the stem at 2 to 4 years postoperatively had significantly lower preoperative function scores and overall Knee Society clinical score. Postoperatively, patients with pain at the end of the stem had a significantly lower clinical score; however the postoperative function score and Knee Society clinical score were not significantly different than scores of patients who did not have pain at the end of the stem. There was no correlation between the stem diameter and the occurrence of pain; however, there was a trend for percent canal fill to be higher on the tibial side in patients with pain (71% versus 63%), but this was not statistically significant. Three of the 16 patients with cemented tibial stems (19%) experienced pain at the end of the stem. Patients with press fit stems who had pain at the end of the stem were more likely to express dissatisfaction with the surgical procedure than patients without pain at the end of the stem.

Cost analysis of revision total hip arthroplasty. A 5-year followup study.

A stratified, unselected sample of 30 patients who underwent revision total hip arthroplasty between 1990 and 1992 for whom complete clinical and financial data were available was studied. Clinical data included age, gender, diagnosis, length of stay, operative time and blood loss. Financial data included cost of implants, bone graft and accessories, hospital charge, and surgeon reimbursement. Results were compared with the results of an analogous group of 50 patients who underwent revision total hip arthroplasty at the same institution between 1995 and 1997. Cases were classified as simple (involving revision of only acetabular liner and/or femoral head), routine (revision of acetabular and/or femoral components), or complex (major structural graft, antiprotrusio cage, impacted grafting). For patients undergoing routine revision total hip arthroplasty, a dramatic decline of 52% occurred in length of stay during the 5-year span (10.7 days to 5.1 days). The average operative time also declined significantly (238 minutes to 199 minutes) as did the average implant cost (

The effect of weight-bearing on the radiographic measurement of the position of the femoral head after total hip arthroplasty.

4349 to

Patient satisfaction and outcome after septic versus aseptic revision total knee arthroplasty.

2827). Despite this, the average hospital charge increased 16% (

Radiographic Wear Measurements in a Cementless Metal-Backed Modular Cobalt-Chromium Acetabular Component

29,666 to

The results of retaining a well-fixed patellar component in revision total knee arthroplasty.

34,328). There was a significant and dramatic 35% decline in surgeon reimbursement (

Paper #15 Patient satisfaction and outcome following septic versus aseptic revision total knee arthroplasty☆

3240 to

Position of the Femoral Head After Total Hip Arthroplasty The Effect of Weight-Bearing on the Radiographic Measurement of the

2178). There was no significant difference in surgeon reimbursement between simple, routine, and complex total hip arthroplasty. Patients who underwent complex procedures had a significantly greater length of stay (7.3 versus 5.1 days) and operative time (297 versus 199 minutes). The hospital charge was dramatically higher for patients undergoing complex procedures (

Paper #29 Cost analysis of revision total hip arthroplasty: A five year follow-up study

51,290 versus