Results of revision total knee arthroplasty in the face of significant bone deficiency.

The successful approach to the failed knee with bone deficiency is dependent upon thorough planning prior to surgery in order to have the resources available in terms of adequate bone allograft and suitable revision implants. The approximate size of bone stock deficiency can be calculated from preoperative radiographs and similarly ligamentous incompetence can often be diagnosed clinically prior to surgery. Smaller defects of up to 1 to 1.5 cm in depth and localized in the main to a single side of the tibial plateau or to a single femoral condyle can be dealt with using smaller grafts that may be local autograft or allograft, or modular wedges. Larger tibial defects can be compensated for using conventional revision systems by thicker polyethylene and augmented baseplates, but once the flexion-extension gap reaches approximately 40 mm this is no longer possible and structural graft or customized componentry becomes necessary. Femoral defects larger than about 1 cm that cannot be made up by augments necessitate grafting. The need to use a large proximal tibial allograft also may dictate the operative approach used to expose the joint, especially in the situation of a multiply-operated tight knee. In such cases the use of a quadriceps turndown may be more advisable than the use of a tibial tubercle osteotomy as the osteotomy may well not have an adequate bed to heal to following the reconstruction. Several series have reported cases of patellar tendon avulsion and the clinical results following this complication usually are not satisfactory. Preoperatively it is important to identify, if possible, the case that is likely to require a more extended approach because of a tight soft tissue envelope. The reports of results of series of revision total knee arthroplasty in the setting of significant bone loss are at present confined to short-term followup. The clinical results of these series are satisfactory at this early point in time, but decision regarding the durability of reconstructions requiring major structural allografting awaits longer-term study. Of concern is the devastating complication of infection following such revision surgery, the risk of which is amplified in the setting of prior infection. In addition, the long-term viability of major structural grafts in the setting of loading is uncertain as the risk of graft collapse in the process of incorporation is not known. Notwithstanding these concerns, major grafting is sometimes the only recourse to achieve satisfactory revision of a failed arthroplasty. The use of such major grafts is therefore cautiously supported and because of the risks inherent in such surgery we believe that such surgery should be carried out in the setting of specialist interest units.