Literature DB >> 15003341

Clinical and functional comparison of bicondylar sledge prostheses retaining all ligaments and constrained total knee replacement.

S Fuchs1, C O Tibesku, M Genkinger, M Volmer, H Laass, D Rosenbaum.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Comparison of different total knee replacements regarding clinical and functional differences with respect to gait and electromyographic analyses.
DESIGN: Retrospective, comparative, clinical and functional study.
METHODS: Three groups (control group of 11 healthy subjects, 15 patients with bicondylar sledge prostheses retaining all ligaments (cemented unicondylar prostheses in both the medial and lateral compartment), 15 patients with constrained total knee replacement sacrificing all cruciate and collateral ligaments (cemented total knee prosthesis with intramedullary stems and a large intercondylar tibial post) were compared by clinical evaluation using a number of clinical evaluation scores, a pain scale, surface electromyographic examinations of the lower limb, and gait analysis.
RESULTS: Clinical scores revealed significantly worse results for patients with constrained prostheses. Both patient groups had significantly lower clinical scores compared to the control group. Gait analysis and electromyographic parameters revealed no significant differences between both patient groups. Compared to the control group, patients revealed significantly impaired parameters. Electromyography also demonstrated significant differences between patients and controls: mean electromyographic activities were reduced in vastus medialis and lateralis, semitendinosus, tibialis anterior and gastrocnemius. Peak activities were reduced in all muscles but rectus femoris.
CONCLUSION: Clinical scores demonstrated significantly better results in bicondylar sledge than in constrained prostheses. Nevertheless, gait and electromyographic analyses did not reveal significant differences. RELEVANCE: Retaining of ligaments in bicondylar sledge prostheses apparently improved the activities of daily living but is not reflected in gait and electromyographic parameters.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15003341     DOI: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2003.11.004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)        ISSN: 0268-0033            Impact factor:   2.063


  6 in total

1.  Survival of bicompartmental knee arthroplasty at 5 to 23 years.

Authors:  Sebastien Parratte; Vanessa Pauly; Jean-Manuel Aubaniac; Jean-Noel A Argenson
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2009-08-08       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 2.  Bicompartmental knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Luigi Sabatini; Matteo Giachino; Salvatore Risitano; Francesco Atzori
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2016-01

Review 3.  Outcomes of Bi-unicompartmental Versus Total Knee Arthroplasty for the Treatment of Medial and Lateral Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Comparative Studies.

Authors:  Michele Mercurio; Giorgio Gasparini; Filippo Familiari; Davide Castioni; Olimpio Galasso
Journal:  Indian J Orthop       Date:  2022-04-06       Impact factor: 1.033

4.  Proprioception after bicruciate-retaining total knee arthroplasty is comparable to unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Florian Baumann; Özkan Bahadin; Werner Krutsch; Johannes Zellner; Michael Nerlich; Peter Angele; Carsten Oliver Tibesku
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2016-05-04       Impact factor: 4.342

5.  Quadriceps force after TKA with femoral single radius.

Authors:  Sven Ostermeier; Christina Stukenborg-Colsman
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2011-04-19       Impact factor: 3.717

6.  Fracture of the Tibial Baseplate in Bicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty.

Authors:  Bart Stuyts; Melanie Vandenberghe; Hans Van der Bracht; Yves Fortems; Elke Van den Eeden; Luc Cuypers
Journal:  Case Rep Orthop       Date:  2015-12-30
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.