Literature DB >> 25017484

The effect of tibial component sizing on patient reported outcome measures following uncemented total knee replacement.

Simon G F Abram1, Andrew G Marsh2, Alistair S Brydone2, Fiona Nicol2, Aslam Mohammed2, Simon J Spencer2.   

Abstract

UNLABELLED: When performing total knee replacement (TKR), surgeons are required to decide on the most appropriate size of tibial component. As implants are predominantly selected from incremental sizes of a preferred design, it may be necessary for a surgeon to slightly under or oversize the component. There are concerns that overhang could lead to pain from irritation of soft tissues, and an undersized component could lead to subsidence and failure. Patient reported outcome measures were recorded in 154 TKRs at one year postoperatively (in 100 TKRs) and five years post-operatively (in 54 TKRs) in 138 patients. The Oxford Knee Score (OKS), WOMAC and SF-12 were recorded, and a composite pain score was derived from the OKS and WOMAC pain questions. Tibial component size and position were assessed on scaled radiographs and implants were grouped into anatomic sized tibial component (78 TKRs), undersized component (48 TKRs), minor overhang one to three mm (10 TKRs) or major overhang ≥ 3 mm (18 TKRs). There was no statistically significant difference between the mean post-operative OKS, WOMAC, SF-12 or composite pain score of each group. Furthermore, localisation of the site of pain did not correlate with medial or lateral overhang of the tibial component. Our results suggest that tibial component overhang or undersizing is not detrimental to outcome measures or pain. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.
Copyright © 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Arthroplasty; Knee; Outcome; Pain; Replacement

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25017484     DOI: 10.1016/j.knee.2014.05.010

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Knee        ISSN: 0968-0160            Impact factor:   2.199


  5 in total

1.  The effect of implant size difference on patient outcomes and failure after bilateral simultaneous total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Alex Tang; David Yeroushalmi; Stephen Zak; Katherine Lygrisse; Ran Schwarzkopf; Morteza Meftah
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2020-06-13

2.  Approximating the maximum tibial coverage in total knee arthroplasty does not necessarily result in implant malrotation.

Authors:  Long Shao; Xiang-Dong Wu; Ting Wang; Xiao-Kang Liu; Wei Xu; Wei Huang; Zhi-Min Zeng
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-06-29       Impact factor: 4.379

3.  Tibial component coverage affects tibial bone resorption and patient-reported outcome measures for patients following total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Changquan Liu; Guanglei Zhao; Kangming Chen; Jinyang Lyu; Jie Chen; Jingsheng Shi; Gangyong Huang; Feiyan Chen; Yibing Wei; Siqun Wang; Jun Xia
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2021-02-12       Impact factor: 2.359

4.  The prevalence of posterolateral tibial baseplate overhang: An anatomical CT study.

Authors:  Sanar S Yokhana; D Alex Hamilton; Sasha A Stine; Lauren N Stimson; Abdul K Zalikha; Chaoyang Chen; Hussein F Darwiche
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2021-02-09

5.  Tibial Base Plate for Total Knee Arthroplasty: Symmetric or Asymmetric?

Authors:  Murat Bozkurt; Mustafa Akkaya; Mesut Tahta; Safa Gursoy; Ahmet Firat
Journal:  Clin Orthop Surg       Date:  2017-08-04
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.