- Case Report
- Open Access
Non-traumatic dislocation (Cam Jump) in a revision knee: a case report
© licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2009
- Received: 25 January 2009
- Accepted: 20 March 2009
- Published: 28 April 2009
Dislocation after total knee arthroplasty is a difficult problem and is even more challenging if it occurs following revision. We report the case of a 82 year old male presenting after a frank posterior dislocation (Cam Jump) in a posterior stabilized revision knee arthroplasty without trauma. Flexion space instability with extensor insufficiency was presumed to be the cause of the dislocation without significant trauma. The possibility of worsening collateral stability with high flexion ranges following knee replacement is also explored.
- Total Knee Arthroplasty
- Total Knee Replacement
- Left Knee
- Knee Dislocation
- Revision Knee
Dislocation after Total knee arthroplasty is an uncommon and a difficult problem to address, more so if this happens after a revision. Instability is the third most common cause of failure of a total knee arthroplasty . Tibio-femoral instability is caused mainly by ligamentous imbalance, malalignment, and implant wear or fixation failure . In the literature, there are reports of dislocation in total condylar , posterior stabilized  and constrained knee systems . The posterior stabilized knee design claimed advantages like increased flexion, better tissue balancing and better polyethylene wear characteristics . Dislocations in primary posterior stabilized knees (Insall-Burstein II [5–7] and Kinemax models [2, 8]) have been reported with the eponymous "Cam Jump" due to different reasons. In revision arthroplasties, reports of such dislocations are few. Sharkey et al  described seven cases of dislocation after knee Arthroplasty which included one patient with a posterior stabilized total condylar revision knee. We present an uncommon case of a frank posterior dislocation in a posterior super stabilized Kinemax revision knee replacement (Howmedica, Rutherford, New Jersey) which occurred without trauma, 3 years after revision along with a brief review of relevant literature and speculate the cause of this relatively rare situation.
A 74-year-old Caucasian male underwent a primary total knee replacement (Kinemax cruciate sacrificing) on the left side for osteoarthritis. He was a retired pharmacist. No other co-morbidities or a significant family history was present. Pre-operatively there was a 10 degree varus deformity of left knee and x-rays showed gross tricompartmental osteoarthritis with total loss of medial joint space.
He sustained a traumatic dislocation of the left knee 22 years ago, which was managed by closed reduction under general anesthesia followed by cast immobilization and physiotherapy. Examination under anesthesia of the knee after reduction following the traumatic dislocation showed anteromedial instability for which a long leg cast was given for 8 weeks. He did not have any following symptomatic instability.
Case reports of dislocations after total Knee arthroplasty in the literature (till 2004)
Type of Prosthesis
Insall et al
Revision with a thicker tibial insert
Revision of tibial component
Den Hartog et al
Semi constrained PCL retaining
Goldberg et al
Hanssen & Rand et al
Galinat et al
Gebhard et al
kinematic II stabiliser
1 MUA,1 revision of tibial component
Sharkey et al
6 cruciate substituiting, 1 cruciate sparing
5 Primary 2 Revision
2 MUA, 1 cylinder cast, 1 patellar realignment, 3 component revision
Lombardi et al
IB I-4, IBII-10, IBIImod-1
Mills et al
Ochsner et al
Wang et al
Erceg et al
Gidwani et al
Hossain et al
1 insert change, 2 MUA
Huang et al
LCS rotating platform
LCS rotating platform
2 revision of tibia
Chiu et al
V Rao et al
Mobile bearing prosthesis
Primary (multiple sclerosis)
Revision with a thicker insert
Tuoheti et al
Thompson et al
LCS rotating platform
9-open reduction,1- MUA
The posterior stabilized design was introduced to address the limitations of total condylar prosthesis, incorporating a femoral Cam and a tibial post to produce femoral roll back thereby increasing the possible range of flexion . But there is a critical point beyond which an implant design allowing increasing flexion range would compromise knee stability . Sharkey et al  in 1992 reported seven patients with knee replacement who had a posterior dislocation and postulated that extensor weakness along with flexion instability as the predominant cause of dislocation.
Kinemax knee system promoted a posterior stabilized design, which is quite popular. Gebhard et al  in 1990 reported two cases of dislocation in a primary Kinemax II stabilized arthroplasty. In both the patients a history of mediolateral stress in extreme flexion along with collateral ligament instability was present and the authors proposed that the anterior position (in comparison to Insall Burstein prosthesis) of the tibial post in the antero-posterior plane with its inability to provide sufficient mediolateral stability, as the cause of the dislocation. The other case series of primary Kinemax posterior stabilized arthroplasty dislocation was by Ochsner et al  in 1996. The authors concluded that the upsloping tibial support post of the Kinemax prosthesis was the cause of instability in flexion.
To optimize knee kinematics, proper alignment in the 3 planes with restoration of the joint line is critical. The most important factor influencing the probability of dislocation in a posterior stabilized knee arthroplasty is obtaining symmetric flexion and extension gaps. Different types of posterior stabilized implant has been developed to provide increased stability to account for ligament insufficiency but still incorporate a basic Cam post mechanism . The posterior cruciate-substituting revision design, with it's extended post-Cam mechanism, compensates for flexion laxity only to some extent.
Instability after total knee arthroplasty can be classified into Anteroposterior or flexion space, varus/valgus or extension space and global instability . Each type of instability has a different pathology and can be satisfactorily managed only by addressing the specific problem. In our patient, the knee probably had some flexion extension mismatch since the index surgery leading to premature aseptic loosening. During revision an implant (superstabilizer ) was used to address this instability, with a central tibial support post of 20 mm height in front of the femoral Cam. This choice of the revision implant was not totally appropriate in this patient as any mismatch if not correctable at surgery must be addressed with a hinged implant. When the patient flexes the knee to >70°, the overlap of the femoral Cam and tibial support also defined as the Dislocation safety factor  decreases. This decrease in the overlap along with subtle extensor dysfunction and persisting instability in flexion (Globally unstable knee) have caused the femoral Cam to ride over the tibial post leading to a frank posterior dislocation without major trauma or implant breakage.
On the basis of his general health and functional state, we have managed him with the next best option of a hinged brace limiting his knee flexion. The ideal choice in this patient if he was fully functional is to revise it to a linked prosthesis. Specifically, in revision knee arthroplasty, bone loss and destruction of landmarks make restoration of the joint line more challenging. This report highlights the importance of soft tissue balance during revision arthroplasty and if not achievable for any reason, should be addressed with a hinge.
Another interesting issue from this report is the question whether soft tissues can cope with high flexion rates after revision arthroplasty without developing instability in the long term. In a cadaveric study , the mean tibiofemoral force in a well balanced knee neared 50 N at full extension. The mean force between 15° and 75° of flexion in this series was 15.5 N (SD 9.6), before rising in an exponential manner to a peak at a mean of 175 N (SD 104) at 150° of flexion. Such forces on compromised soft tissues in a revised knee, especially at extreme ranges of flexion, might lead to chronic attenuation of ligaments resulting in progressive instability in subsequent years. Hence, there is a valid argument at least in a few patients, who are less demanding functionally, of compromising flexion (above 90-100 degrees) for a long term stable knee.
Written informed consent was obtained from the patient for publication of this case report and accompanying images. A copy of the written consent is available for review by the Editor-in-Chief of this journal.
- McAuley JP, Engh GA, Ammeen DJ: Treatment of the unstable total knee Arthroplasty. AAOS Instr Course Lec. 2004, 53: 237-241.Google Scholar
- Lockwood Ochsner J, Chris Kostman W, Dodson M: Posterior dislocation of a posterior-stabilized total knee Arthroplasty. A report of two cases. The American Journal of Orthopaedics. 1996, 25: 310-312.Google Scholar
- Insall JN, Scott WN, Ranawat CS: The total condylar knee prosthesis: A report of 220 cases. J Bone Joint Surg. 1979, 61A: 173.Google Scholar
- Mallory TH, Sydney SV: Dislocation of a constrained knee prosthesis.2 case reports. Complications in Orthopaedics. 4: 93-97.Google Scholar
- Lombardi AV, Mallory TH, Vaughn BK, Krugel R, Honkala TH, Sorscher M, Kolczun M: Dislocation following primary posterior-stabilized total knee Arthroplasty. J of Arthroplasty. 1993, 8: 633-639. 10.1016/0883-5403(93)90012-S.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Hossain S, Ayeko C, Anwar M, Elsworth CF, McGee H: Dislocation of Insall-Burstein II modified total knee Arthroplasty. J of Arthroplasty. 2001, 16: 233-235. 10.1054/arth.2001.20253.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Mills HJ, McKee MD, Horne G, Waddell JP: Dislocation of posteriorly stabilized total knee arthroplasties. CJS. 1994, 37: 225-228.Google Scholar
- Gebhard JS, Kilgus DJ: Dislocation of a posterior stabilized total knee prosthesis. A report of two cases. Clin Orthop Rel Res. 1990, 254: 225-229.Google Scholar
- Sharkey PF, Hozack WJ, Booth RE, Balderston RA, Rothman RH: Posterior Dislocation of Total Knee Arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1992, 278: 128-133.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Pandit H, Ward T, Hollinghurst D, Beard DJ, Gill HS, Thomas NP, Murray DW: Influence of surface geometry and the Cam-post mechanism on the kinematics of total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg (Br). 2005, 87B: 940-945. 10.1302/0301-620X.87B7.15716.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Delp SL, Koemond JH, Stern SH: Tradeoffs between motion and stability in posterior substituting knee Arthroplasty design. J Biomechanics. 1995, 28: 1155-1166. 10.1016/0021-9290(94)00172-Z.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Harwin SF: 1996, Howmedica, IncGoogle Scholar
- Kocmond JH, Delp SL, Stern SH: Stability and range of motion of Insall-Burstein condylar prostheses. A computer stimulation study. J of Arthroplasty. 1995, 10: 383-388. 10.1016/S0883-5403(05)80189-5.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Jeffcoate B, Nicholls R, Schirm A: The variation in medial and lateral collateral ligament strain and tibiofemoral forces following changes in flexion and extension gaps in total knee replacement. A laboratory experiment using cadaver knees. J Bone Joint Surg (Br). 2000, 89: 1528-1533.Google Scholar
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.