Literature DB >> 21236628

Early aseptic loosening with a precoated low-profile tibial component: a case series.

Jared R H Foran1, Brent W Whited, Scott M Sporer.   

Abstract

Between March 2007 and December 2008, we performed 529 consecutive total knee arthroplasties in 460 patients with the Zimmer (Warsaw, IN) NexGen MIS Tibial Component using a minimally invasive approach. Eight knees in 8 patients (1.5%) were revised for early aseptic loosening of the tibial component despite normal initial postoperative radiographs. Several additional patients have concerning radiographic signs of pending failure. The mean time to revision was 17 months (range, 9-31 months). Intraoperatively, in all cases, more than 50% of the tibial tray was devoid of cement and factory-applied polymethylmethacrylate. Our experience with early aseptic loosening of this tibial component has led us to discontinue its use until the etiology of the high early failure rate is able to be determined.
Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21236628     DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2010.11.002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Arthroplasty        ISSN: 0883-5403            Impact factor:   4.757


  9 in total

Review 1.  Assistive technologies in knee arthroplasty: fashion or evolution? Rate of publications and national registries prove the Scott Parabola wrong.

Authors:  Cécile Batailler; Sébastien Parratte
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2021-07-14       Impact factor: 3.067

2.  Comparative retrieval analysis of a novel anatomic tibial tray backside: alterations in tibial component design and surface coating can increase cement adhesions and surface roughness.

Authors:  Dominic T Mathis; Joshua Schmidli; Felix Amsler; Johann Henckel; Harry Hothi; Alister Hart; Michael T Hirschmann
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2022-05-19       Impact factor: 2.562

3.  Aseptic tibial debonding as a cause of early failure in a modern total knee arthroplasty design.

Authors:  Diren Arsoy; Mark W Pagnano; David G Lewallen; Arlen D Hanssen; Rafael J Sierra
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 4.176

4.  Experimental and computational micromechanics at the tibial cement-trabeculae interface.

Authors:  Priyanka Srinivasan; Mark A Miller; Nico Verdonschot; Kenneth A Mann; Dennis Janssen
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2016-04-02       Impact factor: 2.712

5.  Does Knee Prosthesis Survivorship Improve When Implant Designs Change? Findings from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry.

Authors:  Peter L Lewis; Stephen E Graves; Richard N de Steiger; David G Campbell; Yi Peng; Alesha Hatton; Michelle Lorimer
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2020-06       Impact factor: 4.755

6.  Analysis of the Attune tibial tray backside: A comparative retrieval study.

Authors:  A Cerquiglini; J Henckel; H Hothi; P Allen; J Lewis; A Eskelinen; J Skinner; M T Hirschmann; A J Hart
Journal:  Bone Joint Res       Date:  2019-04-02       Impact factor: 5.853

7.  Why do knees after total knee arthroplasty fail in different parts of the world?

Authors:  Dominic T Mathis; Michael T Hirschmann
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2020-12-31

8.  Significant differences in rates of aseptic loosening between two variations of a popular total knee arthroplasty design.

Authors:  Michael Brown; Rohan Ramasubbu; Mark Jenkinson; James Doonan; Mark Blyth; Bryn Jones
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2021-08-15       Impact factor: 3.075

9.  High rate of tibial debonding and failure in a popular knee replacement : a follow-up review.

Authors:  David Keohane; Gerard A Sheridan; Eric Masterson
Journal:  Bone Jt Open       Date:  2022-06
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.