Isolated aseptic loosening in total knee arthroplasty: a comprehensive 10-year review of partial vs. total component revisions

Abstract

Abstract Background In total knee arthroplasty (TKA), isolated aseptic loosening (IAL) requires the replacement of prosthetic components, with ongoing debate regarding the effectiveness of partial component revision (PCR) compared to total component revision (TCR). This study aims to compare implant survival and surgical outcomes between PCR and TCR in the context of IAL. Methods This retrospective study analyzed data from 285 patients who underwent revision TKA for IAL between January 2000 and December 2013. After applying exclusion criteria, 112 patients were included in the analysis—60 undergoing TCR and 52 undergoing PCR. Results PCR was associated with shorter operative times and hospital stays compared to TCR, alongside significant differences in the choice of revision prostheses. Although the prosthesis failure rates were comparable between the groups (13.6% for TCR and 18.33% for PCR), significant risk factors for failure were identified, including a canal filling ratio (CFR) below 0.8 and a discrepancy over 0.2 between CFR views. However, no significant differences in overall survivorship were observed between the groups. Conclusions Both PCR and TCR provide similar survival rates and clinical outcomes for managing IAL in TKA. PCR provides advantages in terms of surgical efficiency and patient recovery, while reducing the need for more constrained prosthetic solutions. The study identifies CFR as a critical predictor of prosthesis failure, highlighting the importance of detailed preoperative planning and implant selection. These findings contribute valuable insights for improving revision strategies in IAL, enhancing surgical outcomes in TKA. Level of evidence III.

Keywords

• Isolated aseptic loosening
• Partial component revision
• Total component revision