Literature DB >> 22484419

Revision total knee arthroplasty with varus-valgus constrained prosthesis versus posterior stabilized prosthesis.

Joon Kyu Lee1, Sahnghoon Lee, Dongwook Kim, Sang Min Lee, Jak Jang, Sang Cheol Seong, Myung Chul Lee.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The aims of this retrospective study were to provide the basis for the choice of prosthesis in revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and to evaluate the outcome with varus-valgus constrained prosthesis compared with posterior stabilized (PS) prosthesis.
METHODS: One hundred and five patients (121 knees) received revision TKA; of which thirty-seven patients (42 knees) received PS prosthesis and sixty-eight patients (79 knees) received varus-valgus constrained prosthesis. The mean follow-up duration was 64.8 ± 31.5 months and 63.2 ± 28.1 months in the PS and varus-valgus constrained groups, respectively. The criterion of prosthesis choice was a subjective laxity assessed by the surgeon intraoperatively. A multivariate analysis was performed to evaluate the preoperative factors in the choice of the prosthesis.
RESULTS: The grade of femoral bone defect was the only factor that affected the choice of prosthesis. Clinical results improved significantly in both groups after surgery. There were no significant differences in clinical results between the two groups. Complication rates were 9.5 % in the PS group and 10.1 % in the varus-valgus constrained group, and the Kaplan-Meier survivorship analysis revealed 8-year component survival rates of 83.1 and 93.0 % in the PS and varus-valgus constrained groups, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Femoral bone defect is an important factor to be considered in the choice of prosthesis for revision TKA. The varus-valgus constrained prosthesis showed an outcome similar to that of the PS prosthesis. For clinical relevance, varus-valgus constrained prosthesis is recommended in revision TKA when the PS prosthesis seems unsuitable for the management of instability. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22484419     DOI: 10.1007/s00167-012-1998-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc        ISSN: 0942-2056            Impact factor:   4.342


  26 in total

1.  Revision total knee arthroplasty: fixation with modular stems.

Authors:  Wade T Gofton; Harry Tsigaras; R Allen Butler; James J Patterson; Robert L Barrack; Cecil H Rorabeck
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2002-11       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  Understanding interobserver agreement: the kappa statistic.

Authors:  Anthony J Viera; Joanne M Garrett
Journal:  Fam Med       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 1.756

3.  Revision total knee arthroplasty with a cemented posterior-stabilized or constrained condylar prosthesis: a minimum 3-year and average 5-year follow-up study.

Authors:  C L Peters; R Hennessey; R M Barden; J O Galante; A G Rosenberg
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  1997-12       Impact factor: 4.757

4.  Total condylar III knee prosthesis. Long-term follow-up study.

Authors:  W F Donaldson; T P Sculco; J N Insall; C S Ranawat
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1988-01       Impact factor: 4.176

5.  The influence of tibial-patellofemoral location on function of the knee in patients with the posterior stabilized condylar knee prosthesis.

Authors:  H E Figgie; V M Goldberg; K G Heiple; H S Moller; N H Gordon
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1986-09       Impact factor: 5.284

6.  GUEPAR knee arthroplasty results and late complications.

Authors:  E C Jones; J N Insall; A E Inglis; C S Ranawat
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1979-05       Impact factor: 4.176

7.  The total condylar III knee prosthesis in elderly patients.

Authors:  C H Kavolus; P M Faris; M A Ritter; E M Keating
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  1991-03       Impact factor: 4.757

8.  The outcome of the cementless tibial component: a minimum 14-year clinical evaluation.

Authors:  Victor M Goldberg; Matthew Kraay
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 4.176

9.  Complex primary and revision total knee arthroplasty using the condylar constrained prosthesis: an average 5-year follow-up.

Authors:  J M Hartford; S B Goodman; D J Schurman; G Knoblick
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  1998-06       Impact factor: 4.757

10.  Retention of the posterior cruciate ligament versus the posterior stabilized design in total knee arthroplasty: a prospective randomized controlled clinical trial.

Authors:  Lennard G H van den Boom; Reinoud W Brouwer; Inge van den Akker-Scheek; Sjoerd K Bulstra; Jos J A M van Raaij
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2009-09-30       Impact factor: 2.362

View more
  14 in total

1.  Extent of vertical cementing as a predictive factor for radiolucency in revision total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Du Hyun Ro; Yool Cho; Sahnghoon Lee; Kee Yun Chung; Seong Hwan Kim; Young Min Lee; Joon Kyu Lee; Myung Chul Lee
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2016-02-01       Impact factor: 4.342

2.  Factors affecting the choice of constrained prostheses when performing revision total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Cheol Hee Park; Jung Kwon Bae; Sang Jun Song
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2018-10-16       Impact factor: 3.075

3.  Joint line changes and outcomes in constrained versus unconstrained total knee arthroplasty for the type II valgus knee.

Authors:  Hee-Nee Pang; Seng-Jin Yeo; Hwei-Chi Chong; Pak-Lin Chin; Shi-Lu Chia; Ngai-Nung Lo
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2013-01-16       Impact factor: 4.342

4.  Factors affecting the osteolysis around the components after posterior-stabilized total knee replacement arthroplasty.

Authors:  Chang Wan Kim; Seung Suk Seo; Jung Han Kim; Hyeong Joo Lee; Chang Rack Lee
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2014-06-11       Impact factor: 4.342

5.  Infection and periprosthetic fracture are the leading causes of failure after aseptic revision total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Juliette A Meyer; Mark Zhu; Alana Cavadino; Brendan Coleman; Jacob T Munro; Simon W Young
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2021-01-30       Impact factor: 3.067

6.  Options and limitations of implant constraint.

Authors:  S K S Marya; Chandeep Singh
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2020-12-23

7.  Ten-Year Results of Primary and Revision Condylar-Constrained Total Knee Arthroplasty in Patients with Severe Coronal Plane Instability.

Authors:  Andrea Camera; Stefano Biggi; Gabriele Cattaneo; Giovanni Brusaferri
Journal:  Open Orthop J       Date:  2015-08-31

8.  A clinical study of the rotational alignment of the femoral component in total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Liangjia Ding; Xiaomin Liu; Changlu Liu; Yingli Liu
Journal:  J Phys Ther Sci       Date:  2015-07-22

9.  Revision TKA with a condylar constrained prosthesis using metaphyseal and surface cementation: a minimum 6-year follow-up analysis.

Authors:  Pablo Sanz-Ruiz; Manuel Villanueva-Martínez; Jose Antonio Matas-Diez; Javier Vaquero-Martín
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2015-02-25       Impact factor: 2.362

10.  Posterolateral Corner Reconstruction Alone Using a Fibular-Based Technique in a Patient with Persistent Unstable Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty.

Authors:  Joseph T Cline; Eduard Alentorn-Geli; J H James Choi; Joseph J Stuart; Terry Kruger; Claude T Moorman Iii
Journal:  Case Rep Orthop       Date:  2015-12-31
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.