FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W135324604> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W135324604 abstract "PURPOSE OF THE STUDY Anatomic changes associated with aseptic loosening make conditions for revision of total knee arthroplasty more difficult. The aim of this study was to evaluate the results of revision total knee replacement at an average follow-up of 6.1 years. MATERIAL AND METHODS A total of 97 revision knee replacements due to aseptic loosening carried out in the years 1992 to 2003 were evaluated. The group included 46 men and 51 women at an average age of 66.8 years. The average preoperative Knee Society Score (KKS) was 31 points and the Functional Score (FS) was 22 points. There were 41 minor operations for AORI type I defects, 49 moderately serious procedures for AORI type II defects and seven major operations for AORI type III defects. In minor procedures standard components were implanted in 14 patients, standard components with cemented stems with extension were used in nine, and polyethylene plateau exchange was carried out in 18 patients. For moderately serious procedures, posterior stabilized components with extended cemented stems were used in 15 patients, revision implants with cementless stems in 26 patients and standard components with cemented stems in eight patients. In seven patients with major surgery, the hinged type of prosthesis was employed. Radiographic results were evaluated on the basis of Ewald’s classification. RESULTS Clinical findings showed improvement of the average KKS from 31 to 74 points at follow-up of 6.1 years. Functional outcomes improved, as shown by the average FS, from 22 to 67 points. Fifteen patients were not satisfied with the outcome of surgery, the causes being aseptic loosening in four, deep infection in eight and pain due to progression of radiolucent lines of the tibia in three patients. DISCUSSION The results of revision surgery with component replacement because of aseptic loosening are worse in comparison with those of primary total knee replacement. The average KSS score after revision surgery was 74 points at 6.1-year follow-up, whereas after primary surgery it was 92 points at 6.5 years. The average FS score after revision was 67 points, as compared with 86 points at 6.5 years after primary surgery. Complications involving infection occurred in 8.2 % of the revision cases, but only in 0.8 % of the primary operations. The authors used modular systems because these provide more options. Good outcomes were achieved with morselized bone grafting for filling cavitary defects. In patients with large defects in tibial or femoral metaphyses, posterior stabilized components and cementless intramedullary stems were used with good results. CONCLUSIONS The authors recommend to avoid filling large bone defects with bone cement. They prefer bone grafting. In the case of good quality metaphyseal bone, they use standard components or posterior stabilized components with or without additional cemented or cementless short stem extensions. In the case of poor quality metaphyseal bone with defects, they use revision implants with cementless long stems. The authors have achieved good results with off-set stems." @default.
• W135324604 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W135324604 creator A5055068904 @default.
• W135324604 creator A5076661176 @default.
• W135324604 creator A5078175656 @default.
• W135324604 creator A5090956737 @default.
• W135324604 date "2007-01-01" @default.
• W135324604 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W135324604 title "Revizní náhrada kolena po aseptickém uvolnění Revision Knee Arthroplasty due to Aseptic Loosening" @default.
• W135324604 cites W1279354973 @default.
• W135324604 cites W1900874282 @default.
• W135324604 cites W1930395683 @default.
• W135324604 cites W2002946130 @default.
• W135324604 cites W2053829949 @default.
• W135324604 cites W2087276679 @default.
• W135324604 cites W2102193450 @default.
• W135324604 cites W2255512797 @default.
• W135324604 cites W2494517042 @default.
• W135324604 cites W3127299857 @default.
• W135324604 cites W76691624 @default.
• W135324604 cites W2148661852 @default.
• W135324604 hasPublicationYear "2007" @default.
• W135324604 type Work @default.
• W135324604 sameAs 135324604 @default.
• W135324604 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W135324604 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W135324604 hasAuthorship W135324604A5055068904 @default.
• W135324604 hasAuthorship W135324604A5076661176 @default.
• W135324604 hasAuthorship W135324604A5078175656 @default.
• W135324604 hasAuthorship W135324604A5090956737 @default.
• W135324604 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W135324604 hasConcept C142724271 @default.
• W135324604 hasConcept C181268634 @default.
• W135324604 hasConcept C204787440 @default.
• W135324604 hasConcept C2776164576 @default.
• W135324604 hasConcept C2778336525 @default.
• W135324604 hasConcept C2778715743 @default.
• W135324604 hasConcept C2780463824 @default.
• W135324604 hasConcept C36454342 @default.
• W135324604 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W135324604 hasConceptScore W135324604C141071460 @default.
• W135324604 hasConceptScore W135324604C142724271 @default.
• W135324604 hasConceptScore W135324604C181268634 @default.
• W135324604 hasConceptScore W135324604C204787440 @default.
• W135324604 hasConceptScore W135324604C2776164576 @default.
• W135324604 hasConceptScore W135324604C2778336525 @default.
• W135324604 hasConceptScore W135324604C2778715743 @default.
• W135324604 hasConceptScore W135324604C2780463824 @default.
• W135324604 hasConceptScore W135324604C36454342 @default.
• W135324604 hasConceptScore W135324604C71924100 @default.
• W135324604 hasLocation W1353246041 @default.
• W135324604 hasOpenAccess W135324604 @default.
• W135324604 hasPrimaryLocation W1353246041 @default.
• W135324604 isParatext "false" @default.
• W135324604 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W135324604 magId "135324604" @default.
• W135324604 workType "article" @default.