Literature DB >> 26006786

All-polyethylene tibial components are not inferior to metal-backed tibial components in long-term follow-up of knee arthroplasties.

Mustafa Yassin1, Avraham Garti, Moshe Weissbrot, Uzi Ashkenazi, Muhammed Khatib, Dror Robinson.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: All-polyethylene tibias (APT) are under-utilized in most of the Western countries, due to a shift from the original all-polyethylene design to metal-backed tibia (MBT) components. Only few total knee prostheses allow direct comparison between APT and MBT components, due to different geometric designs in many systems. The Depuy PFC Sigma prostheses have a similar geometric design in both the MBT and the APT, and with the same corresponding femoral component, thus allowing an assessment and comparison between APT and MBT components.
METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of a consecutive series of osteoarthritic patients who underwent total knee arthroplasties with at least 10-year follow-up comparing a modern congruent APT component to a modular MBT component of the same design.
RESULTS: Seventy-three patients (81 knees, mean age 73 years) were available for assessment. Among the cohort, three patients had revision surgery (one from the APT group). In total, 73 patients were available for follow-up (59 MBT prostheses and 22 APT prostheses). There were no differences in knee function (Knee Society score, range of motion, stability) or radiographic parameters between the groups. Of the three revisions due to tibial tray loosening, only one was performed in the APT group and two were performed in the MBT group; another revision in the MBT group was due to loosening of both components; none of the revisions were due to septic complications. Ten-year survivorship of both designs was 92 %.
CONCLUSIONS: While function of both designs appears similar, the APT design shows a trend toward requiring fewer revisions and is more cost-effective.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26006786     DOI: 10.1007/s00590-015-1645-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol        ISSN: 1633-8065


  12 in total

1.  Low-conforming all-polyethylene tibial component not inferior to metal-backed component in cemented total knee arthroplasty: prospective, randomized radiostereometric analysis study of the AGC total knee prosthesis.

Authors:  G Adalberth; K G Nilsson; S Byström; K Kolstad; J Milbrink
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 4.757

2.  Analysis of polyethylene thickness of tibial components in total knee replacement.

Authors:  S A Edwards; H G Pandit; J L Ramos; M L Grover
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 5.284

3.  Reliability of bony landmarks for restoration of the joint line in revision knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Elvire Servien; Darius Viskontas; Bruno M Giuffrè; Myles R J Coolican; David A Parker
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2007-11-29       Impact factor: 4.342

4.  The influence of joint line restoration on the results of revision total knee arthroplasty: comparison between distance and ratio-methods.

Authors:  Ralf Bieger; Klaus Huch; Semra Kocak; Sebastian Jung; Heiko Reichel; Thomas Kappe
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2014-02-09       Impact factor: 3.067

Review 5.  Long-term implant survivorship of cementless total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Michael A Mont; Robert Pivec; Kimona Issa; Bhaveen H Kapadia; Aditya Maheshwari; Steven F Harwin
Journal:  J Knee Surg       Date:  2013-12-07       Impact factor: 2.757

6.  Patellar denervation in total knee arthroplasty without patellar resurfacing: a prospective, randomized controlled study.

Authors:  M A Altay; C Ertürk; N Altay; R Akmeşe; U E Işıkan
Journal:  Orthop Traumatol Surg Res       Date:  2012-05-01       Impact factor: 2.256

7.  Should we reconsider all-polyethylene tibial implants in total knee replacement?

Authors:  S D Muller; D J Deehan; J P Holland; S E Outterside; L M G Kirk; P J Gregg; A W McCaskie
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2006-12

8.  Polyethylene damage on the nonarticular surface of modular total knee prostheses.

Authors:  John M Cuckler; Jack Lemons; J R Tamarapalli; Preston Beck
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 4.176

9.  Excellent survival of all-polyethylene tibial components in a community joint registry.

Authors:  Terence J Gioe; Penny Sinner; Susan Mehle; Wenjun Ma; Kathleen K Killeen
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2007-11       Impact factor: 4.176

10.  Monoblock all-polyethylene tibial components have a lower risk of early revision than metal-backed modular components.

Authors:  Vivek Mohan; Maria C S Inacio; Robert S Namba; Dhiren Sheth; Elizabeth W Paxton
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2013-11-18       Impact factor: 3.717

View more
  2 in total

Review 1.  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

Review 2.  Cemented all-poly tibia in resource constrained country, affordable and cost-effective care. Is it applicable at this era? Review article.

Authors:  Vickash Kumar; Obada Hasan; Masood Umer; Naveed Baloch
Journal:  Ann Med Surg (Lond)       Date:  2019-09-27
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.