Literature DB >> 29947877

[5-year follow-up of 210 Columbus knee prostheses : A prospective multicentre study].

Andreas Fuchs1, Philip Häussermann2, Dirk Hömig3, Björn Gunnar Ochs4, Christof A Müller5, Peter Helwig6, Lukas Konstantinidis4.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: As part of 10-year documentation using the Columbus system, the interim evaluation was carried out 5 years after implantation with a collection of clinical scores, evaluation of radiological imaging and collection of statistics concerning complications.
METHODS: There was a multicentre prospective recruitment of consecutive patients with the indication of implantation of a surface replacement prosthesis (Columbus CR, Deep Dish fixed inlay). Preoperatively, clinical scores were recorded (KSS and Oxford score). Five years postoperatively a new evaluation of clinical scores, the range of motion (ROM) and a radiological check-up including full leg imaging under load was performed. During this period, detailed complication documentation was made.
RESULTS: A total of 210 patients were recruited in five centres. 187 patients were available for examination 5 years after surgery. Cumulative KSS increased from 87.5 (±26.6) preoperatively to 170 (±29.1) 5 years postoperatively. The cumulative KSS improvement was 81.5 (±35.2) points and was highly significant (p < 0.0001; t‑test). The average functional improvement in the Oxford score between the preoperative and 5‑year follow-up was 21.7 (±8.8) points and was also highly significant (p < 0.0001). The ROM improved from 106.3° (±20.2) preoperatively to 114.0° (±12.1) 5 years postoperatively (p < 0.0001; t test). Five years after implantation, the average mechanical leg axis was 178.0° (±2.1). There was no clinically apparent or native radiologic visible aseptic loosening of the femoral or tibial joint component. There were 33 complications, but no implant-related complications such as inlay dislocation, material fracture or aseptic loosening. In total, 6 revision surgeries were performed during the follow-up period, which corresponds to a survival rate of 97.1% (CI 95%) for the implanted Columbus knee in the present patient collective for 5 years.
CONCLUSION: The interim analysis at 5 years of long-term observation of the Columbus system provided good clinical and radiographic results.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Followup studies; Inlays; Joint replacement; Range of motion; Survival rate

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29947877     DOI: 10.1007/s00132-018-3587-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Orthopade        ISSN: 0085-4530            Impact factor:   1.087


  20 in total

1.  Primary total knee arthroplasty using the P.F.C Sigma®-rotating platform cruciate retaining endoprosthesis--a 6 year follow up.

Authors:  H Bhatt; R Rambani; W White; G Chakrabarty
Journal:  Knee       Date:  2012-05-15       Impact factor: 2.199

2.  Midterm survival of a contemporary modular total knee replacement: a multicentre study of 1970 knees.

Authors:  D F Dalury; W P Barrett; J B Mason; W M Goldstein; J A Murphy; M W Roche
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2008-12

3.  Columbus primary total knee replacement: a 2- to 4-year followup of the use of intraoperative navigation-derived data to predict pre and postoperative function.

Authors:  S David Stulberg; Mark A Yaffe; Ritesh R Shah; Susan E Gall-Sims; Nicholas Palmese; Michael A Granieri; Philip H Schmidt
Journal:  Orthopedics       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 1.390

4.  Functional outcome of PFC Sigma fixed and rotating-platform total knee arthroplasty. A prospective randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Birgit Hanusch; Thai Nurn Lou; Gary Warriner; Anthony Hui; Paul Gregg
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2009-11-08       Impact factor: 3.075

5.  [Total knee arthroplasty in 2014 : Results, expectations, and complications].

Authors:  G Matziolis; E Röhner
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2015-04       Impact factor: 1.087

6.  Columbus navigated TKA system: clinical and radiological results at a minimum of 5 years with survivorship analysis.

Authors:  Sam Hakki; Khaled J Saleh; Anish G Potty; Victor Bilotta; Daniel Oliveira
Journal:  Orthopedics       Date:  2013-03       Impact factor: 1.390

7.  "Modes of failure" of cemented stem-type femoral components: a radiographic analysis of loosening.

Authors:  T A Gruen; G M McNeice; H C Amstutz
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1979-06       Impact factor: 4.176

8.  Clinical Outcome of Medial Pivot Compared With Press-Fit Condylar Sigma Cruciate-Retaining Mobile-Bearing Total Knee Arthroplasty.

Authors:  Young-Hoo Kim; Jang-Won Park; Jun-Shik Kim
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2017-05-18       Impact factor: 4.757

Review 9.  [Satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty. Comparison of 1990-1999 with 2000-2012].

Authors:  A Schulze; H P Scharf
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2013-10       Impact factor: 1.087

10.  The Columbus Knee System: 4-Year Results of a New Deep Flexion Design Compared to the NexGen Full Flex Implant.

Authors:  D Goebel; W Schultz
Journal:  Arthritis       Date:  2012-03-07
View more
  1 in total

1.  10-year follow-up of the Columbus knee prostheses system in a prospective multicenter study.

Authors:  Andreas Fuchs; Philip Häussermann; Dirk Hömig; Björn Gunnar Ochs; Tim Klopfer; Christof A Müller; Peter Helwig; Lukas Konstantinidis
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2021-09-09       Impact factor: 2.928

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.