Search for other papers by Paolo Salari in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Andrea Baldini in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Introduction Revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) is a challenging procedure and is usually associated with worse results when compared with primary knee arthroplasty. 1 In this scenario, surgeons have to deal with different technical
Search for other papers by Xiang-Dong Wu in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Yixin Zhou in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Hongyi Shao in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Dejin Yang in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Sheng-Jie Guo in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Wei Huang in
Google Scholar
PubMed
satisfying radiological and clinical outcomes, while longer-term follow-ups are lacking ( 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 ). However, compared with primary TJA, revision TJA remains a considerable challenge to orthopedic surgeons. Revision TJA is a
Search for other papers by Colby Foster in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
Search for other papers by Christopher Posada in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Bryan Pack in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Brian R. Hallstrom in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
Department of Industrial & Operations Engineering, University of Michigan, Michigan, USA
Search for other papers by Richard E. Hughes in
Google Scholar
PubMed
-prosthetic fracture, and revision. Sources of information include peer-reviewed literature, conference abstracts, industry, and arthroplasty registry reports. However, the generalizability of results in single-institution or single-surgeon studies can be limited. In
Search for other papers by Emmanuel Thienpont in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Introduction Revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) is a challenging and complex procedure 1 , 2 from the initial surgical exposure to the component removal, bone stock restoration and implant selection. 3 , 4 As with primary TKA
IRCCS Galeazzi Orthopedic Institute, Milan, Italy
Search for other papers by Luca Pierannunzii in
Google Scholar
PubMed
IRCCS Galeazzi Orthopedic Institute, Milan, Italy
Search for other papers by Luigi Zagra in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Introduction Bone loss is a major concern of revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). While on the femoral side the problem is commonly solved by passing the defect through long stems seeking distal fixation in the healthy diaphysis, on the
Search for other papers by Mattia Alessio-Mazzola in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Giacomo Placella in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Luigi Zagra in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Orlando Leone in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Natasha Di Fabio in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Desiree Moharamzadeh in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Vincenzo Salini in
Google Scholar
PubMed
reoperation and to compare outcomes with a control group of patients who underwent TKA for primary OA. Secondary endpoints were to assess and compare the operative time, the use of revision components (stems or constrained implants), the request for
Search for other papers by Nicolas Bonnevialle in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Florence Dauzères in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Julien Toulemonde in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Fanny Elia in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Jean-Michel Laffosse in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Pierre Mansat in
Google Scholar
PubMed
complication is always devastating with significant clinical and socioeconomic consequences. 2 The rate is higher after revision surgery than after a primary procedure and reaches close to 5% in cases of reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA). 4 , 5
Search for other papers by Gösta Ullmark in
Google Scholar
PubMed
mean Oxford Hip Score of 17.4 (12 to 32). The score was 26.7 (15 to 47) after one episode of dislocation at a mean follow-up of 4.5 years (1 to 20), 27.2 (12 to 45) after recurrent dislocation, 34.5 (12 to 54) after successful revision surgery and 42
Search for other papers by Carsten Perka in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Orthopedics, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Clinical Sciences, Lund University, Malmö, Sweden
Search for other papers by Maziar Mohaddes in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Luigi Zagra in
Google Scholar
PubMed
BG Kliniken – Klinikverbund der gesetzlichen Unfallversicherung gGmbH, Berlin, Germany
Search for other papers by Axel Ekkernkamp in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Niklas Keller in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Dirk Stengel in
Google Scholar
PubMed
/or any sort of polyethylene liners. This was operationalized as follows: (i) lower overall revision and/or higher component survival rates, (ii) lower revision rates for infection, and (iii) improved patient-reported function and/or quality of life, at
Search for other papers by Kavin Sundaram in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Ahmed Siddiqi in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Atul F. Kamath in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Carlos A. Higuera-Rueda in
Google Scholar
PubMed
primary hip arthroplasty. 1 – 3 There has been renewed interest in variants of this technique including the trochanteric slide osteotomy (TSO), extended trochanter osteotomy (ETO), and the transfemoral approach for both septic and aseptic revision
