Literature DB >> 12439267

A comparison of stemmed and unstemmed components in revision knee arthroplasty.

David G Nazarian1, Samir Mehta, Robert E Booth.   

Abstract

The purpose of the current study was to compare retrospectively the results of the Insall-Burstein constrained condylar knee implant used with and without intramedullary stems in 207 revision knee arthroplasties with the Insall-Burstein constrained condylar knee implant. One hundred sixty-one knees had either one or two stems placed. One hundred eight femoral stems and 76 tibial stems were placed. Fifty-five knees had no femoral or tibial stem. The average knee scores ranged from 52 preoperatively to 86 postoperatively. The average range of motion postoperatively was 4 degrees (range, 0 degrees -10 degrees ) to 106 degrees (range, 94 degrees -118 degrees ) in this group. The average postoperative knee score was 86 in the unstemmed group and 85 in the stemmed group with no difference in average range of motion. There were four (3%) cases of tibial loosening and two (2%) cases of femoral loosening in the unstemmed group. There were two (2%) cases of tibial loosening and two (2%) cases of femoral loosening at an average followup of 4.2 years (range, 2-6.2 years). Despite the higher constraint inherently designed in an Insall-Burstein constrained condylar knee component, the current study did not show a significantly higher loosening in implants without stems compared with implants used with stems. Therefore, the use of a semiconstrained component does not alone constitute a requirement for the use of an intramedullary stem.

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12439267     DOI: 10.1097/00003086-200211000-00039

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res        ISSN: 0009-921X            Impact factor:   4.176


  6 in total

1.  Extent of vertical cementing as a predictive factor for radiolucency in revision total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Du Hyun Ro; Yool Cho; Sahnghoon Lee; Kee Yun Chung; Seong Hwan Kim; Young Min Lee; Joon Kyu Lee; Myung Chul Lee
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2016-02-01       Impact factor: 4.342

2.  Stemmed implants improve stability in augmented constrained condylar knees.

Authors:  Jeremy J Rawlinson; Robert F Closkey; Nicole Davis; Timothy M Wright; Russell Windsor
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2008-08-15       Impact factor: 4.176

3.  Comparative assessment of different reconstructive techniques of distal femur in revision total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  A Completo; F Fonseca; A Ramos; J Simões
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2015-05-30       Impact factor: 4.342

4.  Clinical results and failure mechanisms of a nonmodular constrained knee without stem extensions.

Authors:  Denis Nam; Ben-Paul N Umunna; Michael B Cross; Keith R Reinhardt; Shivi Duggal; Charles N Cornell
Journal:  HSS J       Date:  2012-05-12

5.  Failure of aseptic revision total knee arthroplasties.

Authors:  Tesfaye H Leta; Stein Håkon L Lygre; Arne Skredderstuen; Geir Hallan; Ove Furnes
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2014-09-30       Impact factor: 3.717

6.  STUDY BETWEEN SEMI-CONSTRAINED TOTAL KNEE ARTHROPLASTY WITH OR WITHOUT INTRAMEDULLARY STEM.

Authors:  Rodrigo Sattamini Pires E Albuquerque; Pedro Guilme Teixeira DE Sousa Filho; Rui Felipe Pache DE Moraes; Dalton Roberto DE Melo Franco Filho; Allan Mozella; Hugo Cobra; Vinicius Schott Gameiro
Journal:  Acta Ortop Bras       Date:  2022-08-26       Impact factor: 0.683

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.