Literature DB >> 21997784

All-polyethylene and metal-backed tibial components are equivalent with BMI of less than 37.5.

Jared Toman1, Richard Iorio, William L Healy.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Modular, metal-backed tibial (MBT) components are associated with locking mechanism dysfunction, breakage, backside wear, and osteolysis, which compromise survivorship. All-polyethylene tibial (APT) components eliminate problems associated with MBTs, but, historically, APT utilization has generally been limited to older, less active patients. However, it is unclear whether APT utilization can be expanded to a nonselected patient population. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We therefore determined the survivorship of APT components compared with MBT components in a non-age- or activity-selected population who underwent TKA.
METHODS: Using a longitudinal database, we identified 775 patients with primary TKAs utilizing a single implant design between 1999 and 2007. Of these, 558 (72%) patients had APT components (APT2), while 217 (28%) patients with tibial bone loss or defects, contralateral MBT components, or a BMI of greater than 37.5 received MBT components. We determined the survivorship in the two groups. The minimum followup was 2 years for both groups (mean ± SD: MBT, 80 ± 29 months; APT, 63 ± 27 months). The APT group was older (average age: APT2, 70 years; MBT, 64.7 years) and had a lower BMI than the MBT group (APT2, 30.8; MBT, 33.8).
RESULTS: Survivorship, as defined by revision for any reason, was 99% for the APT group and 97% for the MBT group. There were four (2%) tibial failures in the MBT group in patients with a BMI of greater than 40. There were no revisions for loosening or osteolysis in the APT group.
CONCLUSION: APT implants perform as well as MBT implants in a non-age- or activity-selected TKA population with a BMI of less than 37.5.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 21997784      PMCID: PMC3237995          DOI: 10.1007/s11999-011-2124-3

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


  37 in total

1.  Single Price/Case Price Purchasing in orthopaedic surgery: experience at the Lahey Clinic.

Authors:  W L Healy; R Iorio; M J Lemos; D A Patch; B A Pfeifer; P M Smiley; R M Wilk
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 5.284

2.  In vivo deterioration of tibial baseplate locking mechanisms in contemporary modular total knee components.

Authors:  G A Engh; S Lounici; A R Rao; M B Collier
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2001-11       Impact factor: 5.284

3.  The AGC all-polyethylene tibial component: a ten-year clinical evaluation.

Authors:  Philip M Faris; Merrill A Ritter; E Michael Keating; John B Meding; Leesa D Harty
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 5.284

4.  Hospital economics of primary total knee arthroplasty at a teaching hospital.

Authors:  William L Healy; Adam J Rana; Richard Iorio
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 4.176

5.  Fixation of the tibial components of condylar replacement knee prostheses.

Authors:  P S Walker; C Ranawat; J Insall
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  1976       Impact factor: 2.712

6.  Metal-backed and all-polyethylene tibial components in total knee replacement.

Authors:  J A Rodriguez; N Baez; V Rasquinha; C S Ranawat
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2001-11       Impact factor: 4.176

7.  Impact of cost reduction programs on short-term patient outcome and hospital cost of total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  William L Healy; Richard Iorio; John Ko; David Appleby; David W Lemos
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 5.284

8.  Loosening and osteolysis with the press-fit condylar posterior-cruciate-substituting total knee replacement.

Authors:  S A Mikulak; O M Mahoney; M A dela Rosa; T P Schmalzried
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 5.284

9.  Osteolysis associated with a cemented modular posterior-cruciate-substituting total knee design : five to eight-year follow-up.

Authors:  Michael R O'Rourke; John J Callaghan; Devon D Goetz; Patrick M Sullivan; Richard C Johnston
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 5.284

10.  All-polyethylene and metal-backed tibial components in total knee arthroplasty: a matched pair analysis of functional outcome.

Authors:  Soheil Najibi; Richard Iorio; Jonathan W Surdam; William Whang; David Appleby; William L Healy
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 4.757

View more
  4 in total

Review 1.  What Host Factors Affect Aseptic Loosening After THA and TKA?

Authors:  Jeffrey J Cherian; Julio J Jauregui; Samik Banerjee; Todd Pierce; Michael A Mont
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2015-02-26       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 2.  All-polyethylene versus metal-backed tibial component in total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Umile Giuseppe Longo; Mauro Ciuffreda; Valerio D'Andrea; Nicholas Mannering; Joel Locher; Vincenzo Denaro
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2016-05-21       Impact factor: 4.342

3.  The ratio of patient body mass index to age: a cost-effective implant selection guideline for total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Feroz A Osmani; Nicholas Bolz; Khalid Odeh; Craig Bearison; Ran Schwarzkopf; Richard Iorio
Journal:  Arthroplast Today       Date:  2017-10-21

4.  All-polyethylene tibial components in distal femur limb-salvage surgery: a finite element analysis based on promising clinical outcomes.

Authors:  Fan Tang; Yong Zhou; Wenli Zhang; Li Min; Rui Shi; Yi Luo; Hong Duan; Chongqi Tu
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2017-04-04       Impact factor: 2.359

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.