Aims. Stemmed tibial components are frequently used in revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The purpose of this study was to evaluate patient satisfaction, overall pain, and diaphyseal tibial pain in patients who underwent revision TKA with cemented or uncemented stemmed tibial components. Methods. This is a retrospective cohort study involving 110 patients with revision TKA with cemented versus uncemented stemmed tibial components. Patients who underwent revision TKA with stemmed tibial components over a 15-year period at a single institution with at least two-year follow-up were assessed. Pain was evaluated through postal surveys. There were 63 patients with cemented tibial stems and 47 with uncemented stems. Radiographs and Knee Society Scores were used to evaluate for objective findings associated with pain or patient dissatisfaction. Postal surveys were analyzed using Fisher’s exact test and the independent-samples t-test. Logistic regression was used to adjust for age, sex, and preoperative bone loss. Results. No statistically significant differences in stem length, operative side, or indications for revision were found between the two cohorts. Tibial pain at the end of the stem was present in 25.3% (16/63) of cemented stems and 25.5% (12/47) of uncemented stems (p = 1.000); 74.6% (47/63) of cemented patients and 78.7% (37/47) of uncemented patients were satisfied following revision TKA (p = 0.657). Conclusion. There were no differences in patient satisfaction, overall pain, and diaphyseal tibial pain in cemented and uncemented stemmed tibial components in revision TKA. Patient factors, rather than implant selection and surgical technique, likely play a large role in the presence of postoperative pain. Stemmed tibial components have been shown to be a possible source of pain in revision TKA. There is no difference in patient satisfaction or postoperative pain with cemented or uncemented stemmed tibial components in revision TKA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(6 Supple A):165–170

Structural allografts may be used to manage uncontained bone defects in revision total knee replacement (TKR). However, the availability of cadaver grafts is limited in some areas of Asia. The aim of this study was to evaluate the mid-term outcome of the use of femoral head allografts for the reconstruction of uncontained defects in revision TKR, focusing on complications related to the graft.

We retrospectively reviewed 28 patients (30 TKRs) with Anderson Orthopaedic Research Institute (AORI) type 3 bone defects, who underwent revision using femoral head allografts and stemmed components. The mean number of femoral heads used was 1.7 (1 to 3). The allograft–host junctions were packed with cancellous autograft.

At a mean follow-up of 76 months (38 to 136) the mean American Knee Society knee score improved from 37.2 (17 to 60) pre-operatively to 90 (83 to 100) (p < 0.001). The mean function score improved from 26.5 (0 to 50) pre-operatively to 81 (60 to 100) (p < 0.001). All the grafts healed to the host bone. The mean time to healing of the graft was 6.6 months (4 to 16). There have been no complications of collapse of the graft, nonunion, infection or implant loosening. No revision surgery was required.

The use of femoral head allografts in conjunction with a stemmed component and autogenous bone graft in revision TKR in patients with uncontained bone defects resulted in a high rate of healing of the graft with minimal complications and a satisfactory outcome. Longer follow-up is needed to observe the evolution of the graft.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:643–8.