| Literature DB >> 23205234 |
Ju-Yeong Kwak1, Jae-Heon Jeong, Sang-Hak Lee, Ho-Joong Jung, Young-Bok Jung.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We compared clinical outcomes after total knee arthroplasty with the Low Contact Stress (LCS) rotating platform mobile bearing knee system and the Press Fit Condylar Sigma rotating platform high flexion (PFC Sigma RP-F) mobile bearing knee system.Entities:
Keywords: High flexion rotating platform prosthesis; Outcome; Range of motion
Mesh:
Year: 2012 PMID: 23205234 PMCID: PMC3504689 DOI: 10.4055/cios.2012.4.4.256
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Clin Orthop Surg ISSN: 2005-291X
Fig. 1(A, B) Case with Low Contact Stress. (C, D) Case with Sigma rotating platform high flexion.
Demographic Data
LCS: Low Contact Stress, RP-F: rotating platform high flexion, NS: not significant.
Fig. 2The tibiofemoral angle (*) is measured by anatomical axis of the femur or the tibia.
Fig. 3Patellar tilt is measured from the 45° Merchant view.
Fig. 4The posterior femoral condylar offset is measured by the maximum thickness of the posterior condyle projected posteriorly to the tangent of the posterior cortex of the femoral shaft.
Preoperative Factors between Groups
LCS: Low Contact Stress, RP-F: rotating platform high flexion, HSS: Hospital for Special Surgery.
Clinical Results
LCS: Low Contact Stress, RP-F: rotating platform high flexion, KSS: Knee Society Score, HSS: Hospital for Special Surgery.
Comparison of Mean Range of Motion between Two Groups
LCS: Low Contact Stress, RP-F: rotating platform high flexion.
Radiologic Results
LCS: Low Contact Stress, RP-F: rotating platform high flexion.
*Negative value means valgus limb alignment.