Literature DB >> 19043129

A trabecular metal tibial component in total knee replacement in patients younger than 60 years: a two-year radiostereophotogrammetric analysis.

A Henricson1, L Linder, K G Nilsson.   

Abstract

We compared the performance of uncemented trabecular metal tibial components in total knee replacement with that of cemented tibial components in patients younger than 60 years over two years using radiostereophotogrammetric analysis (RSA). A total of 22 consecutive patients (mean age 53 years, 33 to 59, 26 knees) received an uncemented NexGen trabecular metal cruciate-retaining monobloc tibial component and 19 (mean 53 years, 44 to 59, 21 knees) a cemented NexGen Option cruciate-retaining modular tibial component. All the trabecular metal components migrated during the initial three months and then stabilised. The exception was external rotation, which did not stabilise until 12 months. Unlike conventional metal-backed implants which displayed a tilting migration comprising subsidence and lift-off from the tibial tray, most of the trabecular metal components showed subsidence only, probably due to the elasticity of the implant. This pattern of subsidence is regarded as being beneficial for uncemented fixation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 19043129     DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.90B12.20797

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br        ISSN: 0301-620X


  30 in total

1.  Early aseptic loosening of a porous tantalum knee prosthesis.

Authors:  D Tigani; G Sabbioni; A Raimondi
Journal:  Chir Organi Mov       Date:  2009-11-06

Review 2.  Larger range of motion and increased return to activity, but higher revision rates following unicompartmental versus total knee arthroplasty in patients under 65: a systematic review.

Authors:  Laura J Kleeblad; Jelle P van der List; Hendrik A Zuiderbaan; Andrew D Pearle
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2017-11-28       Impact factor: 4.342

Review 3.  Bone loss management in total knee revision surgery.

Authors:  Gabriele Panegrossi; Marco Ceretti; Matteo Papalia; Filippo Casella; Fabio Favetti; Francesco Falez
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2014-01-10       Impact factor: 3.075

4.  Changes in bone mineral density of the proximal tibia after uncemented total knee arthroplasty. A prospective randomized study.

Authors:  Nikolaj Winther; Claus Jensen; Morten Petersen; Thomas Lind; Henrik Schrøder; Michael Petersen
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2015-07-17       Impact factor: 3.075

5.  Similar survival between screw cementless and cemented tibial components in young patients with osteoarthritis.

Authors:  Alejandro Lizaur-Utrilla; Francisco A Miralles-Muñoz; Fernando A Lopez-Prats
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2012-11-08       Impact factor: 4.342

6.  Preliminary clinical results of coated porous tibia cones in septic and aseptic revision knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Malte Ohlmeier; Christian Lausmann; Matthias Wolff; Hussein Abdelaziz; Thorsten Gehrke; Mustafa Citak
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2020-04-09       Impact factor: 3.067

7.  Trabecular metal in total knee arthroplasty associated with higher knee scores: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Mariano Fernandez-Fairen; Daniel Hernández-Vaquero; Antonio Murcia; Ana Torres; Rafael Llopis
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2013-07-25       Impact factor: 4.176

8.  Better survival of total knee replacement in patients older than 70 years: a prospective study with 8 to 12 years follow-up.

Authors:  Ricardo Fernandez-Fernandez; E Carlos Rodriguez-Merchan
Journal:  Arch Bone Jt Surg       Date:  2015-01-15

Review 9.  Highlighting the advantages and benefits of cementless total knee arthroplasty (Review).

Authors:  Bogdan Uivaraseanu; Cosmin Mihai Vesa; Delia Mirela Tit; Octavian Maghiar; Teodor Andrei Maghiar; Calin Hozan; Aurelia Cristina Nechifor; Tapan Behl; Felicia Liana Andronie-Cioara; Jenel Marian Patrascu; Simona Bungau
Journal:  Exp Ther Med       Date:  2021-11-18       Impact factor: 2.447

10.  Do porous tantalum implants help preserve bone?: evaluation of tibial bone density surrounding tantalum tibial implants in TKA.

Authors:  Alicia K Harrison; Terence J Gioe; Christine Simonelli; Penny J Tatman; Mary C Schoeller
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2010-01-12       Impact factor: 4.176

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.