Removal of a Well-Fixed Total Knee Arthroplasty



Removal of a Well-Fixed Total Knee Arthroplasty


Daniel J. Berry



Removal of a well-fixed total knee arthroplasty component is required in many circumstances during revision total knee arthroplasty. Minimally traumatic removal of implants is essential to preserve critical ligamentous structures and as much good-quality bone as possible to facilitate the subsequent revision. Furthermore, efficient implant removal is essential to allow revision surgery to be performed in a timely manner. Finally, avoiding complications during the implant process removal is also important to optimize the outcome of the revision surgery (1, 2, 3).

Methods of implant removal have evolved over the past 3 decades. From a wide variety of techniques, a moderate number of methods have emerged, which most surgeons agree are most successful and efficient. Better instruments have also been developed, which make implant removal simultaneously simpler and more bone sparing.


INDICATIONS AND CONTRAINDICATIONS

Indications for removal of well-fixed total knee arthroplasty components include all circumstances in which an implant must be removed to optimize the results of the subsequent revision. As implant removal techniques have evolved and improved, surgeons have become more willing to remove well-fixed implants to optimize the subsequent reconstruction. That is, surgeons have become less fearful of the drawbacks of removing well-fixed implants and at the same time, have become more conscious of the value of starting with fresh implants that do not compromise options available for the subsequent reconstruction.


Indications for removal of well-fixed implants include the following:



  • Chronic infection in which a one- or two-stage procedure is being planned


  • Revision for implant malposition, in any plane including rotation


  • Revision for problematic implant sizing


  • Revision for knee instability for cases in which a high level of constraint is required


  • Selected cases of revision for bearing surface wear and for osteolysis when prosthetic retention is not desirable


  • Selected cases of periprosthetic fracture that cannot be treated with implant fixation


  • Removal of well-fixed implants to accommodate implants of new design when any other part of the arthroplasty is removed for implant failure of any reason, including loosening


  • Revision of well-fixed but fractured implants

Removal of well-fixed implants is relatively contraindicated when the implant can be preserved at revision surgery without compromising the reconstruction results. In some cases, a well-fixed, well-positioned tibial component that has parts compatible with modern femoral components may be preserved. A well-fixed femoral component may also be preserved in special circumstances; however, it is important to understand that preserving the well-fixed femoral component limits the surgeon’s ability to adjust the position of the joint line, and therefore the flexion and extension balance. A well-fixed femoral component can be preserved less frequently than a well-fixed tibial component.

A well-fixed patellar component can often be preserved even when tibial and femoral revision are required. To be retained, the patellar component should not demonstrate severe polyethylene damage and should be reasonably compatible with the geometry of the trochlear groove of the planned new femoral component. Most dome-shaped patellar components articulate sufficiently well with the trochlear groove of most femoral implants to be considered compatible (4).

When the surgeon considers removing any implant, the risks and benefits of the decision must be weighed carefully. The surgeon must consider the following questions: How important is it to remove the implant for the subsequent reconstruction? How much bone is likely to be lost at the time of implant removal? If the anticipated amount of bone is lost, how much will this affect the subsequent revision options and success? What is the likelihood of more bone than expected being lost during implant removal? What is the likelihood of a catastrophic problem occurring during implant removal such as fracture of the major supportive portion of the bone? If major bone loss or a fracture occurs during implant removal, how much will this affect the results of the proposed reconstruction? How much time is implant removal likely to take, and what risk does the extra operative time pose to the individual patient? What benefits are likely to be realized by an implant removal? Are these benefits important enough to justify the risks previously mentioned?


TOOLS AND PREOPERATIVE PLANNING

The preoperative plan should take into account the diagnosis for which the patient is being revised and should include careful consideration of the specific interventions necessary to solve the existing problems with the knee arthroplasty. Before surgery, anticipate which implants will require removal to accomplish the surgical plan, and in turn, have appropriate tools available to accomplish the anticipated implant removal.

Before the surgery, make every effort to identify the specific implants already in place by manufacturer and design. Familiarize yourself with the design of the implants to be removed and methods of implant disassembly. Some implants can be removed much more easily if proper implant disassembly tools or implant-specific removal instruments are on hand, and in such cases, when possible, make arrangements in advance to have these instruments available.

Consider the tools needed for implant removal, including osteotomes, oscillating saws, punches, and universal tibial and femoral implant extraction devices. Also, have available specialized instruments such as high-speed metal cutting instruments and ultrasonic devices for cement removal. When necessary, have available specialized intramedullary cement column removal instruments when cemented stemmed implants must be removed.

As part of the preoperative plan, consider the order in which implants will be removed and have back-up plans available should the initial plan for implant removal fail. Also consider alternative plans if more bone loss than expected occurs during implant removal.



SURGICAL TECHNIQUE

Effective implant removal is based on using specific instruments for specific tasks. The following is a list of commonly used instruments with a discussion of strengths and weaknesses of each.


Hand Instruments


Osteotomes

Osteotomes can be used very effectively to divide the prosthesis-cement interfaces of cemented implants. Osteotomes can also be used effectively in some circumstances to cut uncemented implant-bone interfaces; thin flexible osteotomes are most useful in these cases. Stacked osteotomes can be used as wedges to lift implants out of bone.

Drawbacks of osteotomes include the fact that they can wander away from an implant-bone interface and cause bone destruction. When used as levering devices, osteotomes tend to crush bone, particularly when the bone is soft.


Punches

Good-quality punches are used to exert an axial force to accomplish implant removal. Punches should be used as a means of extracting the implant in most cases only after the implant interfaces have been disrupted. Good-quality punches can help extract well-fixed stems as well as the condylar portions of implants.


Gigli Saws

Gigli saws can be used to cut implants away from bone. These saws allow access to certain interfaces that are difficult to reach with other saws. The main drawback of Gigli saws, which has recently led to their less-frequent use, is their tendency to wander away from prosthesis interfaces and into good-quality bone, which leads to bone loss.


Power Instruments


Power Saws

Power saws efficiently cut both prosthesis-cement interfaces and prosthesis-bone interfaces. Certain saw blades, especially narrow blades and relatively short blades, are particularly helpful. Trying to stay close to the implant with the saw blade is an important aspect of safe and effective use of a power saw. Keep in mind that saw blades can wander away from implant interfaces, and relatively short passes with a saw blade from multiple sides of the implant reduce the risk of the blade wandering far from the implant. Saw blades become dull when used against metal implants and need to be exchanged frequently. “Past pointing” with saw blades can cause damage to soft tissue structures.


Ultrasonic Instruments

Ultrasonic instruments can melt and cut cement (5,6). As such, they are effective for dividing cemented implant-periprosthesis interfaces (7). Ultrasonic instruments can also be used to remove well-fixed intramedullary cement. Drawbacks of ultrasonic instruments include the fact that they create heat and can burn bone, particularly when a tourniquet is inflated, thus lavage should be used in conjunction with ultrasonic instruments (8). Ultrasonic instruments are more expensive than hand instruments, and in some cases, they are not as fast to use as hand instruments.


Metal Cutting Instruments

Metal cutting instruments are essential for certain specific tasks in implant removal. They can facilitate cutting away well-fixed portions of an implant to allow access to other interfaces. They are particularly useful for dividing the well-fixed pegs of an uncemented metal-back patellar component and for removing the condylar portion of the tibial or femoral implant to allow access to underlying well-fixed stems.

Jun 13, 2016 | Posted by in ORTHOPEDIC | Comments Off on Removal of a Well-Fixed Total Knee Arthroplasty

Full access? Get Clinical Tree

Get Clinical Tree app for offline access