Skip to content
DraconiticResearch
Search Sources API
186,086 studies31 sourcesUpdated 10 min ago
Peer-reviewedCC BY 4.0Journal of Clinical Medicine

Megaprosthesis in Knee Arthroplasty Revision for Non Oncologic Patient: A Narrative Review

  • Francesco Schettini1
  • Miriam Grassi2
  • Marco Mattia Larghi2
  • Alfonso Manzotti2
  1. 1School of Medicine and Surgery, Residency Program in Orthopaedics and Traumatology, University of Milan, 20122 Milan, Italy
  2. 2Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Luigi Sacco Hospital ASST FBF SACCO, 20157 Milan, Italy
Read full textPDFDOICite

Abstract

In knee reconstructive surgery, total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a well-established and successful procedure, with a substantial worldwide increase in the number of procedures performed, driven by an aging population and expanding indications. Consequently, a growing challenge in modern arthroplasty surgery is the progressively increasing cumulative burden of complex revision TKA (rTKA), which often involves severe periprosthetic bone loss, a history of multiple previous surgical failures, periprosthetic joint infections (PJI), periprosthetic fractures (PPFs), or ligamentous instability with disruption of the extensor mechanism. In these highly compromised scenarios, megaprostheses, originally developed for limb salvage following musculoskeletal tumor resections in orthopedic oncology, have emerged as a valuable salvage technique and have been progressively adapted for demanding non-oncological reconstructive revision procedures. Despite the increasing adoption of megaprostheses, clinical decision-making in non-oncological rTKA remains a topic of ongoing debate. A clear consensus regarding precise clinical indications, advantages and disadvantages, and long-term survival rates compared with alternative reconstructive techniques is still evolving. The aim of this review article is to specifically analyze the current literature regarding the indications, outcomes, and rates and types of complications associated with megaprosthetic reconstruction in revision total knee arthroplasty, providing orthopedic surgeons with an evidence-based framework for patient selection and surgical planning.

Related

  1. Personalized Revision Arthroplasty After Failed Medial Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: A Contemporary Narrative Review
    Paweł Skowronek, Adam Smolik, Filip Skowronek +4
    Journal of Clinical MedicinePeer-reviewedCC BY 4.0General medicineCrossref
  2. From Measured Accuracy to Patient Outcome: Navigation in Total Hip Arthroplasty and Molecular Diagnosis of Periprosthetic Joint Infection: A Narrative Review
    Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)Peer-reviewedCC BYFull textGeneral medicineEurope PMC
  3. Patient-specific management in high-risk revision total hip arthroplasty: mid-term outcomes of a next-generation constrained acetabular liner.
    Farouk Khury, Blaine Luebbering, Garrett Ruff +4
    Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgeryPeer-reviewedCC BYFull textSurgery & anaesthesiaEurope PMC
  4. Comparing Short-Term Clinical Outcomes and Survivorship of Complex Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: Custom Triflange Acetabular Implants Vs Standard Cage Reconstruction
    Arthroplasty todayPeer-reviewedCC BY-NC-NDFull textSurgery & anaesthesiaEurope PMC
  5. Early Revision Rates and Clinical Outcomes of Two Cementless Cruciate-Retaining Total Knee Arthroplasty Designs at Two-Year Follow-Up: A Propensity Score-Adjusted Comparative Analysis
    Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania)Peer-reviewedCC BYFull textGeneral medicineEurope PMC

Cite

BibTeXRIS
BibTeX
@article{schettini2026megaprosthesis,
  title = {{Megaprosthesis in Knee Arthroplasty Revision for Non Oncologic Patient: A Narrative Review}},
  author = {Francesco Schettini and Miriam Grassi and Marco Mattia Larghi and Alfonso Manzotti},
  journal = {Journal of Clinical Medicine},
  year = {2026},
  month = oct,
  doi = {10.3390/jcm15208126},
  url = {https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/15/20/8126},
  note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY  - JOUR
TI  - Megaprosthesis in Knee Arthroplasty Revision for Non Oncologic Patient: A Narrative Review
AU  - Francesco Schettini
AU  - Miriam Grassi
AU  - Marco Mattia Larghi
AU  - Alfonso Manzotti
PY  - 2026
DA  - 2026/10/01
JO  - Journal of Clinical Medicine
DO  - 10.3390/jcm15208126
UR  - https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/15/20/8126
AB  - In knee reconstructive surgery, total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a well-established and successful procedure, with a substantial worldwide increase in the number of procedures performed, driven by an aging population and expanding indications. Consequently, a growing challenge in modern arthroplasty surgery is the progressively increasing cumulative burden of complex revision TKA (rTKA), which often involves severe periprosthetic bone loss, a history of multiple previous surgical failures, periprosthetic joint infections (PJI), periprosthetic fractures (PPFs), or ligamentous instability with disruption of the extensor mechanism. In these highly compromised scenarios, megaprostheses, originally developed for limb salvage following musculoskeletal tumor resections in orthopedic oncology, have emerged as a valuable salvage technique and have been progressively adapted for demanding non-oncological reconstructive revision procedures. Despite the increasing adoption of megaprostheses, clinical decision-making in non-oncological rTKA remains a topic of ongoing debate. A clear consensus regarding precise clinical indications, advantages and disadvantages, and long-term survival rates compared with alternative reconstructive techniques is still evolving. The aim of this review article is to specifically analyze the current literature regarding the indications, outcomes, and rates and types of complications associated with megaprosthetic reconstruction in revision total knee arthroplasty, providing orthopedic surgeons with an evidence-based framework for patient selection and surgical planning.
SN  - 2077-0383
ER  -