This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Letters to the Editor: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Letters to the Editor are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow E-mail 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 Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Nelson, C. L.
Right arrow Articles by Thompson, R. C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Nelson, C. L.
Right arrow Articles by Thompson, R. C., Jr.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American) 85:S43-S51 (2003)
© 2003 The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc.

Implant Selection in Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty

Charles L. Nelson, MD, Terrence J. Gioe, MD, Edward Y. Cheng, MD and Roby C. Thompson, Jr., MD

Corresponding author: Charles L. Nelson, MD
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, 2 Silverstein, 3400 Spruce Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104

The authors did not receive grants or outside funding in support of their research or preparation of this manuscript. They did not receive payments or other benefits or a commitment or agreement to provide such benefits from a commercial entity. No commercial entity paid or directed, or agreed to pay or direct, any benefits to any research fund, foundation, educational institution, or other charitable or nonprofit organization with which the authors are affiliated or associated.

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.


   Introduction
 
Revision total knee arthroplasty implants have evolved from fully constrained (fixed-hinge) to semiconstrained to contemporary constrained designs. The latter category includes nonlinked constrained (total condylar-III) designs ( Fig. 1) and rotating-hinge designs ( Figs. 2-A and 2-B).


Figure Removed (Available Only in the Full Text)
View larger version (78K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig. 1: Postoperative anteroposterior radiograph illustrating a nonlinked constrained knee design that was used to revise a failed primary total knee arthroplasty in a patient with rheumatoid arthritis.

 

Figure Removed (Available Only in the Full Text)
View larger version (96K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Figs. 2-A and 2-B: Preoperative (Fig. 2-A) and postoperative (Fig. 2-B) radiographs of the knee of a low-demand seventy-nine-year-old woman who was managed with a rotating-hinge knee prosthesis because of a comminuted periprosthetic supracondylar fracture of the femur.

 
Additionally, the advent of limb-salvage procedures following tumor resection and other instances in which there is massive segmental bone loss, such as that seen after multiple failed arthroplasties (particularly following failed reimplantation for infection), has stimulated the development of modular or custom segmental replacement "megaprostheses" and the use of allograft-prosthesis composites. . . . [Full Text of this Article]


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?