Literature DB >> 15466723

Uncemented rotating-platform total knee replacement: a five to twelve-year follow-up study.

R Barry Sorrells1, Paul E Voorhorst, Jeffrey A Murphy, Maryrose P Bauschka, A Seth Greenwald.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Mobile-bearing knee designs represent an alternative to conventional fixed-bearing total knee arthroplasty. We present the results of a prospective, intermediate-term clinical follow-up study of the bicruciate ligament-sacrificing porous-coated Low Contact Stress rotating-platform total knee design.
METHODS: Between February 1984 and January 1994, 528 uncemented primary knee replacements were performed in 421 patients. All patellae were resurfaced with use of the Low Contact Stress rotating patellar component. The average age of the patients at the time of the index procedure was sixty-nine years. The study group included 261 women and 160 men. Patients were evaluated at three months, six months, and yearly thereafter with use of the 100-point New Jersey Orthopaedic Hospital knee-scoring system. In addition, a radiographic analysis of the tibial, femoral, and patellar components was performed at each interval.
RESULTS: There were twenty-nine failures that resulted in revision. The Kaplan-Meier estimate of implant survival at twelve years was 89.5% (95% confidence interval, 83.4% to 95.6%). The total clinical scores improved significantly compared with the preoperative scores for the first twelve months postoperatively and then plateaued. Three hundred and twenty-one knees had adequate radiographic follow-up (average, 8.1 years; range, five to twelve years). Zonal radiographic analysis revealed ninety-three instances of radiolucent lines (eighty-two of which measured <1 mm in width), with the greatest number of radiolucent lines (thirty-nine) being located around the tibial tray stem. None of these lines were deemed to be progressive, and no knee with a radiolucent line that measured >2 mm was revised because of failure.
CONCLUSIONS: This first-generation uncemented, mobile-bearing, bicruciate ligament-sacrificing knee replacement was associated with a good survival rate and demonstrated clinical efficacy during the five to twelve-year follow-up interval. .

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15466723

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am        ISSN: 0021-9355            Impact factor:   5.284


  18 in total

1.  Total knee arthroplasty using cementless keels and cemented tibial trays: 10-year results.

Authors:  Frank R Kolisek; Michael A Mont; Thorsten M Seyler; David R Marker; Nenette M Jessup; Junaed A Siddiqui; Eric Monesmith; Slif D Ulrich
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2008-01-09       Impact factor: 3.075

2.  Prospective study of the cementless "New Wave" total knee mobile-bearing arthroplasty: 8-year follow-up.

Authors:  Xavier Normand; Jean-Louis Pinçon; Jean-Marie Ragot; Régis Verdier; Thierry Aslanian
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2014-05-25

3.  Mid-term results with a highly congruous mobile-bearing knee prosthesis.

Authors:  Roger G Lemaire
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2009-08-22       Impact factor: 4.342

4.  Posterior Shift of Contact Point between Femoral Component and Polyethylene in the LCS Rotating Platform Implant under Weight Bearing Condition.

Authors:  Won Seok Oh; Yong Seuk Lee; Byung Kak Kim; Jae Ang Sim; Beom Koo Lee
Journal:  Knee Surg Relat Res       Date:  2016-06-01

5.  Cemented versus cementless fixation in total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Fabrizio Matassi; Christian Carulli; Roberto Civinini; Massimo Innocenti
Journal:  Joints       Date:  2014-01-08

6.  Does computer-assisted surgery influence survivorship of cementless total knee arthroplasty in patients with primary osteoarthritis? A 10-year follow-up study.

Authors:  Hervé Ouanezar; Florent Franck; Alexandre Jacquel; Vincent Pibarot; Julien Wegrzyn
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2016-04-07       Impact factor: 4.342

Review 7.  Cementless total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Alessandro Aprato; Salvatore Risitano; Luigi Sabatini; Matteo Giachino; Gabriele Agati; Alessandro Massè
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2016-04

8.  Is There A Difference in Bone Ingrowth in Modular Versus Monoblock Porous Tantalum Tibial Trays?

Authors:  Josa A Hanzlik; Judd S Day; Clare M Rimnac; Steven M Kurtz
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2015-01-22       Impact factor: 4.757

9.  Total knee replacement: an evidence-based analysis.

Authors: 
Journal:  Ont Health Technol Assess Ser       Date:  2005-06-01

10.  Comparison of long-term clinical outcomes after bilateral mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasties using PCL-retaining and PCL-substituting implants in the same patients.

Authors:  Yoshinori Ishii; Hideo Noguchi; Junko Sato; Tetsuya Sakurai; Shin-Ichi Toyabe
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2016-04-30       Impact factor: 4.342

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.