PURPOSE: Knee pain after total knee arthroplasty may be caused by an unresurfaced patella. Secondary isolated resurfacing of the previously unresurfaced patella in total knee arthroplasty remains controversial. The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the outcome after patellar resurfacing as a second stage procedure. METHODS: The study included 22 patients (13 female/nine male) who underwent resurfacing of the patella with a mean follow-up of 61.8 ± 39.2 months. The mean age of the patients was 60 ± 9.7 years at the time of operation. The average period between total knee arthroplasty and patellar resurfacing was 26.3 ± 15.2 months. The patient's subjective satisfaction was assessed by a custom-made questionnaire. RESULTS: The mean Knee Society Score improved significantly from 60.1 ± 8.3 to 77.0 ± 6.3 (p = 0.0063). The mean functional score also improved significantly from 42.7 ± 2.3 to 60.2 ± 3.9 (p = 0.001). Three patients (13.6%) needed further operative revision. CONCLUSIONS: Although clinical scores showed significant improvement some patients continued to have pain and remained dissatisfied without detecting a specific reason. Further studies are needed to better elucidate the benefit of patellar resurfacing as second stage procedure.
PURPOSE:Knee pain after total knee arthroplasty may be caused by an unresurfaced patella. Secondary isolated resurfacing of the previously unresurfaced patella in total knee arthroplasty remains controversial. The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the outcome after patellar resurfacing as a second stage procedure. METHODS: The study included 22 patients (13 female/nine male) who underwent resurfacing of the patella with a mean follow-up of 61.8 ± 39.2 months. The mean age of the patients was 60 ± 9.7 years at the time of operation. The average period between total knee arthroplasty and patellar resurfacing was 26.3 ± 15.2 months. The patient's subjective satisfaction was assessed by a custom-made questionnaire. RESULTS: The mean Knee Society Score improved significantly from 60.1 ± 8.3 to 77.0 ± 6.3 (p = 0.0063). The mean functional score also improved significantly from 42.7 ± 2.3 to 60.2 ± 3.9 (p = 0.001). Three patients (13.6%) needed further operative revision. CONCLUSIONS: Although clinical scores showed significant improvement some patients continued to have pain and remained dissatisfied without detecting a specific reason. Further studies are needed to better elucidate the benefit of patellar resurfacing as second stage procedure.
Authors: Ioannis A Karnezis; Ioannis C Vossinakis; C Rex; Emmanuel G Fragkiadakis; John H Newman Journal: J Arthroplasty Date: 2003-12 Impact factor: 4.757
Authors: Daniel N Bracey; Matthew L Brown; Hoyt R Beard; Sandeep Mannava; Omar F Nazir; Thorsten M Seyler; Jason E Lang Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2015-03-18 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: Johannes F Plate; Thorsten M Seyler; Jason J Halvorson; Anthony C Santago; Jason E Lang Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2013-01-19 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Philip P Roessler; Randa Moussa; Cornelius Jacobs; Karl F Schüttler; Thomas Stein; Frank A Schildberg; Dieter C Wirtz Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2018-08-01 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: Lucas Werth; Mo Saffarini; Felix Amsler; Ashraf Abdelkafy; Michael T Hirschmann Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2016-09-13 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Nicolaas C Budhiparama; Hendy Hidayat; Kiki Novito; Dwikora Novembri Utomo; Imelda Lumban-Gaol; Rob G H H Nelissen Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2020-09 Impact factor: 4.755
Authors: João Correia; Marc Sieder; Daniel Kendoff; Mustafa Citak; Thorsten Gehrke; Wolfgang Klauser; Carl Haasper Journal: Open Orthop J Date: 2012-09-07