Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Painful knee arthroplasty: current practice

  • Revision Knee Arthroplasty (R. Rossi, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Primary total knee arthroplasty is the treatment for end-stage arthritis of the knee; in the last years, it is becoming more common and reliable, due to technical and implant improvement. With larger implant rates, the overall complications will increase and pain is the most common sign of implant failure. Pain can be related to a lot of different clinical findings, and the surgeon has to be aware of the various etiologies that can lead to failure. Pain does not always mean revision, and the patient has to be fully evaluated to have a correct diagnosis; if surgery is performed for the wrong reason, this will surely lead to a failure. In this paper, the authors revised the more common causes of failure that can have a painful onset proposing an approach for diagnosis and treatment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance

  1. Kurtz S et al. Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am Vol. 2007;89(4):780–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Vince KG. You can do arthroplasty in a young patient, but…: commentary on articles by John P. Meehan, MD, et al.: “Younger age is associated with a higher risk of early periprosthetic joint infection and aseptic mechanical failure after total knee arthroplasty,” and Vinay K. Aggarwal, et al.: “Revision total knee arthroplasty in the young patient: is there trouble on the horizon?”. J Bone Joint Surg Am Vol. 2014;96(7):e58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Vince KG. Why knees fail. J Arthroplast. 2003;18(3 Suppl 1):39–44. This paper is the first that described the causes of failure classifying them in classes. It is at the basis of our current practice.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Jacobs MA et al. Revision total knee arthroplasty for aseptic failure. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1988;226:78–85.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Parratte S, Pagnano MW. Instability after total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am Vol. 2008;90(1):184–94.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Callaghan JJ, O’Rourke MR, Saleh KJ. Why knees fail: lessons learned. J Arthroplast. 2004;19(4 Suppl 1):31–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Fehring TK, Valadie AL. Knee instability after total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994;299:157–62.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Yercan HS et al. Tibiofemoral instability in primary total knee replacement: a review. Part 2: diagnosis, patient evaluation, and treatment. Knee. 2005;12(5):336–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Yercan HS et al. Tibiofemoral instability in primary total knee replacement: a review, part 1: basic principles and classification. Knee. 2005;12(4):257–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Meding JB et al. Meeting increased demand for total knee replacement and follow-up: determining optimal follow-up. Bone Joint J. 2013;95-B(11):1484–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Fehring TK et al. Early failures in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001;392:315–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Pagnano MW et al. Flexion instability after primary posterior cruciate retaining total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1998;356:39–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Abdel MP et al. Stepwise surgical correction of instability in flexion after total knee replacement. Bone Joint J. 2014;96-B(12):1644–8. The authors describe the more common causes of instability after TKA and propose a stepwise approach extremely useful in clinics.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Dorr L, et al. Revision knee arthroplasty: how I do it. Surg Knee Ed. 2001; 3

  15. Konigsberg B et al. Inter- and intraobserver reliability of two-dimensional CT scan for total knee arthroplasty component malrotation. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014;472(1):212–7.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Heyse TJ et al. MRI after unicondylar knee arthroplasty: rotational alignment of components. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2013;133(11):1579–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Heyse TJ et al. MRI analysis for rotation of total knee components. Knee. 2012;19(5):571–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Schwab JH et al. Flexion instability without dislocation after posterior stabilized total knees. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005;440:96–100.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Kocmond JH, Delp SL, Stern SH. Stability and range of motion of Insall-Burstein condylar prostheses. A computer simulation study. J Arthroplast. 1995;10(3):383–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Abdel MP, Haas SB. The unstable knee: wobble and buckle. Bone Joint J. 2014;96-B(11 Supple A):112–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Krackow KA, Weiss AP. Recurvatum deformity complicating performance of total knee arthroplasty. A brief note. J Bone Joint Surg Am Vol. 1990;72(2):268–71.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Meding JB et al. Total knee replacement in patients with genu recurvatum. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001;393:244–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Giori NJ, Lewallen DG. Total knee arthroplasty in limbs affected by poliomyelitis. J Bone Joint Surg Am Vol. 2002;84-A(7):1157–61.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Brassard M et al. Complications of total knee arthroplasty. Surg Knee Ed. 2001;3:1814–6.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Vince KG, Abdeen A, Sugimori T. The unstable total knee arthroplasty: causes and cures. J Arthroplast. 2006;21(4 Suppl 1):44–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Clarke HD et al. Clinical results in valgus total knee arthroplasty with the “pie crust” technique of lateral soft tissue releases. J Arthroplast. 2005;20(8):1010–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Insall JN et al. Total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1985;192:13–22.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Kim J, Nelson CL, Lotke PA. Stiffness after total knee arthroplasty. Prevalence of the complication and outcomes of revision. J Bone Joint Surg Am Vol. 2004;86-A(7):1479–84.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Fitzsimmons SE, Vazquez EA, Bronson MJ. How to treat the stiff total knee arthroplasty?: a systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468(4):1096–106.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Laubenthal KN, Smidt GL, Kettelkamp DB. A quantitative analysis of knee motion during activities of daily living. Phys Ther. 1972;52(1):34–43.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Christensen CP et al. Revision of the stiff total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast. 2002;17(4):409–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Nicholls DW, Dorr LD. Revision surgery for stiff total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast. 1990;5(Suppl):S73–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Babis GC et al. Poor outcomes of isolated tibial insert exchange and arthrolysis for the management of stiffness following total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am Vol. 2001;83-A(10):1534–6.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Kawamura H, Bourne RB. Factors affecting range of flexion after total knee arthroplasty. J Orthop Sci Off J Jpn Orthop Assoc. 2001;6(3):248–52.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Coutts RD et al. The painful total knee replacement and the influence of component design. Contemp Orthop. 1994;28(6):523–36. 541–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Schurman DJ, Parker JN, Ornstein D. Total condylar knee replacement. A study of factors influencing range of motion as late as two years after arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am Vol. 1985;67(7):1006–14.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Papagelopoulos PJ, Sim FH. Limited range of motion after total knee arthroplasty: etiology, treatment, and prognosis. Orthopedics. 1997;20(11):1061–5. quiz 1066–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Issa K et al. The effect of timing of manipulation under anesthesia to improve range of motion and functional outcomes following total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am Vol. 2014;96(16):1349–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Parker DA, Dunbar MJ, Rorabeck CH. Extensor mechanism failure associated with total knee arthroplasty: prevention and management. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2003;11(4):238–47.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Rand JA, Morrey BF, Bryan RS. Patellar tendon rupture after total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989;244:233–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Lynch AF, Rorabeck CH, Bourne RB. Extensor mechanism complications following total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast. 1987;2(2):135–40.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Nam D et al. The management of extensor mechanism complications in total knee arthroplasty. AAOS exhibit selection. J Bone Joint Surg Am Vol. 2014;96(6):e47. Exhaustive analysis of the various extensor mechanism failures and their treatment.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Emerson Jr RH, Head WC, Malinin TI. Extensor mechanism reconstruction with an allograft after total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994;303:79–85.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Malhotra R et al. Management of extensor mechanism deficit as a consequence of patellar tendon loss in total knee arthroplasty: a new surgical technique. J Arthroplast. 2008;23(8):1146–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Nazarian DG, Booth Jr RE. Extensor mechanism allografts in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1999;367:123–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Benner RW, Shelbourne KD, Freeman H. Infections and patellar tendon ruptures after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a comparison of ipsilateral and contralateral patellar tendon autografts. Am J Sports Med. 2011;39(3):519–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Stinner DJ, Orr JD, Hsu JR. Fluoroquinolone-associated bilateral patellar tendon rupture: a case report and review of the literature. Mil Med. 2010;175(6):457–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Stephenson AL, et al. Tendon injury and fluoroquinolone use: a systematic review. Drug Saf. 2013

  49. Shahi A, Parvizi J. Prevention of periprosthetic joint infection. Arch Bone Joint Surg. 2015;3(2):72–81.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Bozic KJ et al. The epidemiology of revision total knee arthroplasty in the United States. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468(1):45–51.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Paxton EW et al. A prospective study of 80,000 total joint and 5000 anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction procedures in a community-based registry in the United States. J Bone Joint Surg Am Vol. 2010;92 Suppl 2:117–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Parvizi J et al. New definition for periprosthetic joint infection: from the Workgroup of the Musculoskeletal Infection Society. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469(11):2992–4.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Parvizi J, Gehrke T. Definition of periprosthetic joint infection. J Arthroplast. 2014;29(7):1331. The basis of the current practice in periprosthetic joint infection diagnosis, prevention and treatment.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. New definition for periprosthetic joint infection. J Arthroplasty. 2011;26(8):1136–8.

  55. Athanassious C et al. Evaluation of fever in the immediate postoperative period in patients who underwent total joint arthroplasty. J Arthroplast. 2011;26(8):1404–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Glithero PR et al. White cell scans and infected joint replacements. Failure to detect chronic infection. J Bone Joint Surg Br Vol. 1993;75(3):371–4.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Austin MS et al. A simple, cost-effective screening protocol to rule out periprosthetic infection. J Arthroplast. 2008;23(1):65–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Berbari E et al. Inflammatory blood laboratory levels as markers of prosthetic joint infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am Vol. 2010;92(11):2102–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Greidanus NV et al. Use of erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C-reactive protein level to diagnose infection before revision total knee arthroplasty. A prospective evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am Vol. 2007;89(7):1409–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Springer BD. The diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection. J Arthroplast. 2015;30(6):908–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Diaz-Ledezma C et al. Diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection in Medicare patients: multicriteria decision analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014;472(11):3275–84.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Di Cesare PE et al. Serum interleukin-6 as a marker of periprosthetic infection following total hip and knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am Vol. 2005;87(9):1921–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Toossi N et al. Serum white blood cell count and differential do not have a role in the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection. J Arthroplast. 2012;27(8 Suppl):51–4.e1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Parvizi J et al. Diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection: the utility of a simple yet unappreciated enzyme. J Bone Joint Surg Am Vol. 2011;93(24):2242–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Odum SM et al. Irrigation and debridement for periprosthetic infections: does the organism matter? J Arthroplast. 2011;26(6 Suppl):114–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Romano CL et al. Value of debridement and irrigation for the treatment of peri-prosthetic infections. A systematic review. Hip Int J Clin Exp Res Hip Pathol Ther. 2012;22 Suppl 8:S19–24.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Osmon DR et al. Executive summary: diagnosis and management of prosthetic joint infection: clinical practice guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis Off Publ Infect Dis Soc Am. 2013;56(1):1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Guild 3rd GN, Wu B, Scuderi GR. Articulating vs. static antibiotic impregnated spacers in revision total knee arthroplasty for sepsis. A systematic review. J Arthroplast. 2014;29(3):558–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Petersen W et al. Anterior knee pain after total knee arthroplasty: a narrative review. Int Orthop. 2014;38(2):319–28.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Motsis EK et al. Review article: patellar instability after total knee arthroplasty. J Orthop Surg. 2009;17(3):351–7.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Jazrawi LM et al. The accuracy of computed tomography for determining femoral and tibial total knee arthroplasty component rotation. J Arthroplast. 2000;15(6):761–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. Toms AD et al. The management of patients with painful total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br Vol. 2009;91(2):143–50.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  73. Seil R, Pape D. Causes of failure and etiology of painful primary total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Off J ESSKA. 2011;19(9):1418–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Yoshii I, Whiteside LA, Anouchi YS. The effect of patellar button placement and femoral component design on patellar tracking in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1992;275:211–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Schindler OS. The controversy of patellar resurfacing in total knee arthroplasty: Ibisne in medio tutissimus? Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Off J ESSKA. 2012;20(7):1227–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Bhattee G et al. Does malrotation of components correlate with patient dissatisfaction following secondary patellar resurfacing? Knee. 2014;21(1):247–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Barrack RL et al. Component rotation and anterior knee pain after total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001;392:46–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Bell SW et al. Component rotational alignment in unexplained painful primary total knee arthroplasty. Knee. 2014;21(1):272–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Verlinden C et al. The influence of malrotation of the femoral component in total knee replacement on the mechanics of patellofemoral contact during gait: an in vitro biomechanical study. J Bone Joint Surg Br Vol. 2010;92(5):737–42.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  80. Nicoll D, Rowley DI. Internal rotational error of the tibial component is a major cause of pain after total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br Vol. 2010;92(9):1238–44.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  81. Scott RD. Femoral and tibial component rotation in total knee arthroplasty: methods and consequences. Bone Joint J. 2013;95-B(11 Suppl A):140–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Hozack WJ et al. The patellar clunk syndrome. A complication of posterior stabilized total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989;241:203–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Costanzo JA et al. Patellar clunk syndrome after total knee arthroplasty; risk factors and functional outcomes of arthroscopic treatment. J Arthroplast. 2014;29(9 Suppl):201–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Namba RS et al. Risk factors for total knee arthroplasty aseptic revision. J Arthroplast. 2013;28(8 Suppl):122–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Sadoghi P et al. Revision surgery after total joint arthroplasty: a complication-based analysis using worldwide arthroplasty registers. J Arthroplast. 2013;28(8):1329–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Watts CD et al. Morbid obesity: increased risk of failure after aseptic revision TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473(8):2621–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Perillo-Marcone A, Taylor M. Effect of varus/valgus malalignment on bone strains in the proximal tibia after TKR: an explicit finite element study. J Biomech Eng. 2007;129(1):1–11.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Mandalia V et al. Evaluation of patients with a painful total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br Vol. 2008;90(3):265–71.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  89. Wasielewski RC et al. Wear patterns on retrieved polyethylene tibial inserts and their relationship to technical considerations during total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994;299:31–43.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Jiang Y et al. Current research in the pathogenesis of aseptic implant loosening associated with particulate wear debris. Acta Orthop Belg. 2013;79(1):1–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Gromov K et al. What is the optimal alignment of the tibial and femoral components in knee arthroplasty? Acta Orthop. 2014;85(5):480–7.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Skripitz R, Aspenberg P. Pressure-induced periprosthetic osteolysis: a rat model. J Orthop Res Off Publ Orthop Res Soc. 2000;18(3):481–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  93. Windisch C et al. Osteodensitometry measurements of periprosthetic bone using dual energy X-ray absorptiometry following total knee arthroplasty. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2012;132(11):1595–601.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Scott CE et al. Predicting dissatisfaction following total knee replacement: a prospective study of 1217 patients. J Bone Joint Surg Br Vol. 2010;92(9):1253–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  95. Hofmann S et al. The painful knee after TKA: a diagnostic algorithm for failure analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Off J ESSKA. 2011;19(9):1442–52.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  96. Dowd GS et al. Complex regional pain syndrome with special emphasis on the knee. J Bone Joint Surg Br Vol. 2007;89(3):285–90.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  97. Lindenfeld TN, Bach Jr BR, Wojtys EM. Reflex sympathetic dystrophy and pain dysfunction in the lower extremity. Instr Course Lect. 1997;46:261–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Wasner G, Backonja M-M, Baron R. Traumatic neuralgias: complex regional pain syndromes (reflex sympathetic dystrophy and causalgia): clinical characteristics, pathophysiologic mechanisms and therapy. Neurol Clin. 1998;16(4):851–68.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. Rau C, Thomas P, Thomsen M. Metal sensitivity in patients with joint replacement arthroplasties before and after surgery. Orthopade. 2008;37(2):102–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  100. Thienpont E, Berger Y. No allergic reaction after TKA in a chrome-cobalt-nickel-sensitive patient: case report and review of the literature. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Off J ESSKA. 2013;21(3):636–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. Stokvis A et al. Surgical management of neuroma pain: a prospective follow-up study. Pain. 2010;151(3):862–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  102. Dellon AL et al. Partial denervation for persistent neuroma pain around the knee. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996;329:216–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  103. Kim NH et al. A case of subcutaneous neuroma presenting with intractable pain and allodynia over the anteromedial aspect of the knee. Clin J Pain. 2012;28(7):635–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  104. Manning BT et al. Diagnosis and management of extra-articular causes of pain after total knee arthroplasty. Instr Course Lect. 2015;64:381–8. A comprehensive overview of extra-articular causes of pain in TKA.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  105. Tensho K et al. Snapping pes syndrome after total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Off J ESSKA. 2014;22(1):192–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  106. Luyckx L et al. Iliotibial band traction syndrome in guided motion TKA. A new clinical entity after TKA. Acta Orthop Belg. 2010;76(4):507–12.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  107. Pandher DS, Boparai RS, Kapila R. Biceps tendinitis as a cause of acute painful knee after total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast. 2009;24(8):1292.e15-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Compliance with Ethics Guidelines

Conflict of Interest

The authors have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Osp. Mauriziano, Largo Turati, 62, 10100, Torino, Italy

    Umberto Cottino, Federica Rosso, Antonio Pastrone, Federico Dettoni, Roberto Rossi & Matteo Bruzzone

Authors
  1. Umberto Cottino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Federica Rosso
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Antonio Pastrone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Federico Dettoni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Roberto Rossi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Matteo Bruzzone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matteo Bruzzone.

Additional information

Investigation performed at the Hospital Mauriziano “Umberto I,” Torino, Italy

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Revision Knee Arthroplasty

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cottino, U., Rosso, F., Pastrone, A. et al. Painful knee arthroplasty: current practice. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 8, 398–406 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12178-015-9296-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12178-015-9296-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation