We compare the clinical and radiographic results of partial-component versus full-component revision total knee arthroplasty. A retrospective review was used to identify patients who had partial revision total knee arthroplasty. Only isolated femoral or tibial revisions were included. From 1986 to 2000, 448 revision total knee arthroplasties were done. Seventy-seven partial revisions were done. Three were excluded for a diagnosis of infection. The average followup was 63 months. The average Knee Society score for full component revisions was 85 compared with 79 for partial revisions. This difference was significant (p = 0.0001). The average Knee Society score for those patients who had a full revision for instability was 85 compared with 63 for partial revision (p = 0.0001). The average Knee Society score for those patients who had a full revision for wear-related problems was 88 compared with 78 for partial revisions (p = 0.03). Although the advantages of partial revision in hip replacement are well-documented, the efficacy of this treatment strategy has not been established in revision total knee arthroplasty. Care should be taken when considering partial revision for instability or wear-related problems.
Level of evidence: Therapeutic study, Level III (retrospective cohort study). See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.