| Literature DB >> 27748254 |
Vikash Kapoor1, Daipayan Chatterjee1, Sutanu Hazra1, Anirban Chatterjee1, Parag Garg1, Kaustav Debnath1, Soham Mandal1, Sudipto Sarkar1.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Patient satisfaction after total knee replacement (TKR) depends on the amount of pain relief and the functional activities achieved. An important criterion of good functional outcome is the amount of flexion achieved and whether the patient can manage high flexion activities. In order to increase the amount of safe flexion, various implant designs have been developed. This study aims to compare the outcome after TKR using two contemporary high flexion knee designs: Sigma CR150 High Flex Knee prosthesis (Depuy, Warsaw, Indiana) and NexGen High Flex Knee prosthesis (Zimmer, Warsaw, Indiana). MATERIAL: A retrospective study was conducted with 100 cases of each design and their functional and radiological outcome was assessed after two years of follow-up.Entities:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27748254 PMCID: PMC5066340 DOI: 10.1051/sicotj/2016026
Source DB: PubMed Journal: SICOT J ISSN: 2426-8887
Comparison of demographic data of two contemporary high flexion knee designs.
| Mean age | Mean BMI | Gender | Side | Cases with FFD | Co-morbidities | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Depuy (n = 100) | 65.5 (r = 51–79) | 29.4 (r = 22.5–32.4) | M = 22 | L = 51 | 57 | Hypertension-72% |
| F = 78 | R = 49 | Type 2 DM-21% | ||||
| Hypothyroidism-11% | ||||||
| Dyslipidaemia-10% | ||||||
| Ischaemic heart ds-4% | ||||||
| Asthma-1% | ||||||
| Depression-1% | ||||||
| None-22% | ||||||
| Zimmer (n = 100) | 63.7 (r = 52–85) | 29.7 (r = 21.8–31.6) | M = 13 | L = 37 | 55 | Hypertension-70% |
| F = 87 | R = 63 | Hypothyroidism-13% | ||||
| Type 2 DM-13% | ||||||
| Dyslipidaemia-8% | ||||||
| Ischaemic heart ds-7% | ||||||
| Asthma-2% | ||||||
| Depression-2% | ||||||
| None-28% |
M = male, F = female, L = left, R = right, r = range, FFD = fixed flexion deformity.
Enumeration of implant sizes used of two contemporary high flexion knee designs.
| Depuy (n = 100) | Zimmer (n = 100) | |
|---|---|---|
| Femoral component size | 2.5–32% | D – 51% |
| 2–28% | C – 29% | |
| 3–32% | E – 10% | |
| 1.5–1% | F – 10% | |
| 4–6% | ||
| 3.5–1% | ||
| Tibial component size | 3–45% | 3–37% |
| 2.5–23% | 4–32% | |
| 2–22% | 5–19% | |
| 4–5% | 6–10% | |
| 5–4% | 2–2% | |
| 3.5–1% | ||
| Insert size | 10–60% | 10–71% |
| 12.5–22% | 12–27% | |
| 8–18% | 14–2% |
Comparison of functional outcome in the two contemporary high flexion knee designs.
| Mean ROM | FFD | Mean WOMAC score | Mean modified Oxford score | Knee alignment | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Varus | Normal | Valgus | Mean | ||||||
| Depuy | Pre-op | 94.6° (r = 60–150°) | 57% (m = 4° r = 5–20°) | 63 (r = 55–73) | 13 (r = 8–19) | 62% | 38% | 0 | 6° varus (r = 5° valgus–30° varus) |
| Post-op | 134.6° (r = 110–145°) | 0 | 3.5 (r = 1–8) | 45.6 (r = 34–48) | 0 | 100% | 0 | 5.3° valgus (r = 4° –10° valgus) | |
| Zimmer | Pre-op | 95.2° (r = 50–140°) | 55% (m = 4.25° r = 5–30°) | 63.5 (r = 55–73) | 12.7 (r = 8–19) | 74% | 26% | 0 | 7.6° varus (r = 10° valgus–40° varus) |
| Post-op | 133.4° (r = 115–145°) | 0 | 4.65 (r = 1–8) | 39.9 (r = 32–48) | 0 | 100% | 0 | 5.2° valgus (r = 4° –12° valgus) | |
Pre-op = pre-operative, Post-op = post-operative, ROM = range of motion, FFD = fixed flexion deformity, m = mean, r = range.
Figure 1.(a) Lateral view of Depuy CR 150 showing extended posterior condyle (sigma “J” curve), (b) superior view of Depuy CR 150, (c) posterior view of Depuy CR 150, (d) lateral view of Zimmer high flex showing decreased anterior flange thickness, (e) superior view of Zimmer high flex showing decreased anterior flange width, (f) posterior view of Zimmer high flex showing increased trochlear groove angle.