| Literature DB >> 29433583 |
Cheng-Pang Yang1, Kuo-Yao Hsu1, Yu-Han Chang1, Yi-Sheng Chan1, Hsin-Nung Shih1, Alvin Chao-Yu Chen2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Reports of diverse outcomes in modular mini-keel tibial componentry for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) have raised concerns about early aseptic loosening. Cruciate-retaining (CR) prostheses, using mini-keel implants, have yet to be reported and compared to posterior-stabilizing (PS) designs.Entities:
Keywords: Aseptic loosening; Mini-keel; Minimally invasive surgery (MIS); Modular tibial component; Radiolucency; Total knee arthroplasty (TKA)
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29433583 PMCID: PMC5809852 DOI: 10.1186/s13018-018-0738-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Orthop Surg Res ISSN: 1749-799X Impact factor: 2.359
Demographic data
| CR group | PS group | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| No. of patients | 46 | 45 | |
| Age | 68.7 ± 7.6 | 69.8 ± 7.4 | 0.31 |
| Sex | |||
| Men | 10 (21.7%) | 15 (33.3%) | |
| Women | 36 (78.3%) | 30 (66.7%) | |
| Side | |||
| Left | 26 (56.5%) | 20 (44.4%) | |
| Right | 20 (43.5%) | 25 (55.6%) | |
| Body mass index (kg/m2) | 29.0 ± 4.7 | 27.5 ± 4.4 | 0.07 |
| Preoperative femorotibial (°) | Varus 2.8 ± 7.2 | Varus 2.7 ± 7.1 | 0.97 |
CR cruciate-retaining, PS posterior-stabilized
Fig. 1The modular mini-keel tibial implant (NexGen MIS Tibial Component; Zimmer Inc., Warsaw, IN, USA) was made of two parts: the plate with a keel underneath (mini-keel) and a modular stem
Fig. 2Postoperative radiographs for analysis of periprosthetic radiolucency. The tibial side was divided into 3 zones in the lateral view and 7 zones in the anteroposterior view (white dotted lines around the tibial component). The femoral side was divided into 7 zones on the lateral view (black dotted lines around the femoral component)
Radiological and clinical outcome
| CR group | PS group | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Operation time (min) | 159.9 | 168.6 | 0.31 |
| Knee Society Functional Score | 81.67 ± 11.97 | 80.12 ± 14.16 | 0.29 |
| Range of motion (°) | 121.5 ± 13.4 | 120.9 ± 13.6 | 0.82 |
| Femorotibial angle (°) | Valgus 5.85 ± 2.62 | Valgus 5.85 ± 3.27 | 0.60 |
| Tibial component angle (°) | Varus 0.46 ± 1.6 | Varus 0.61 ± 1.3 | 0.30 |
| Tibial component posterior inclination (°) | 2.28 ± 2.36 | 1.93 ± 2.72 | 0.51 |
| Radiolucent zones | 17 (2.2%) | 9 (4%) | 0.24 |
Comparison of radiolucency between PS and CR groups
| Zone (case) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PS group | |||||||
| Site | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Femur | 3 | 1 | |||||
| Tibia AP | 3 | 3 | |||||
| Tibia LAT | |||||||
| CR group | |||||||
| Site | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Femur | 5 | 2 | |||||
| Tibia AP | 5 | 1 | |||||
| Tibia LAT | 1 | 3 | |||||
Fig. 3Kaplan–Meier survival analysis
Fig. 4Radiolucency was more commonly seen at zone 1 of the tibial anteroposterior view owing to inadequate cement penetration (white hollow arrow)