Condylar constrained knee prosthesis and rotating hinge prosthesis for revision total knee arthroplasty for mechanical failure have not the same indications and same resultsWilliam Barnoud,1 Axel Schmidt,1,* John Swan,1 Elliot Sappey-Marinier,1 Cécile Batailler,1 Elvire Servien,1,2 and Sébastien Lustig1,3
Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate whether there are any differences in outcomes and complication rates between condylar constrained knee (CCK) and rotating hinge knee (RHK) prostheses used for the first revision of total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) after mechanical failure. Methods: Sixty-three consecutive non-septic revisions of posterior stabilized implants using 33 CCK and 30 RHK prostheses were included. Clinical evaluation and revision rate were compared between the two groups at two years minimum follow-up. Results: The CCK group had significantly better clinical outcomes and satisfaction rates compared to patients with RHK (KSS-knee 70.5 versus 60.7 (p < 0.003) and KSS-function 74.9 versus 47.7 (p < 0.004) at 3.7 (2.0–9.4) years mean follow-up. Moreover, the clinical improvement was significantly higher for the CCK group concerning the KSS-Knee (+23.9 vs. +15.2 points, p = 0.03). The postoperative flexion was significantly better in the CCK group compared to the RHK group (115° vs. 103°, p = 0.01). The prosthesis-related complications and the re-revision rate were higher in the RHK group, especially due to patellofemoral complications and mechanical failures. Conclusions: CCK prostheses provided better clinical and functional outcomes and fewer complications than RHK prostheses when used for the first non-septic rTKA. CCK is a safe and effective implant for selected patients, while RHK should be used with caution as a salvage device for complex knee conditions, with particular attention to the balance of the extensor mechanism.