| Literature DB >> 31275661 |
Michael H Bourne1, Tony L Miller1, E Marc Mariani1.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The primary purpose of this study was to evaluate mid-term survival of a Balanced Knee System in the first 500 total knee arthroplasty (TKA) cases using a fully cemented, posterior stabilized TKA at a high-volume private practice. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this IRB approved retrospective cohort study, data were extracted from a surgical registry at a high-volume orthopaedic practice for the first 500 total knee arthroplasty (TKA) cases performed using the Balanced Knee® System (BKS, Ortho Development®, Draper, Utah, USA). Procedures were performed between June 2000 and September 2003 by one of two orthopaedic surgeons. Follow-up was performed at 6 weeks, 6 months, 1 year, 5 years, and 10 years. 48 patients (9.6%) were considered lost to follow-up. A competing risk analysis was performed to evaluate the cumulative incidence of revision while accounting for the competing risk of death. In the model, failure was defined as revision of any BKS component. Those who failed prior to two years remained in the analysis.Entities:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31275661 PMCID: PMC6582882 DOI: 10.1155/2019/9580586
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Adv Orthop ISSN: 2090-3464
Figure 1Flow diagram demonstrating patient attrition.
Figure 2The spacer block system provided in the instrumentation of the Balanced Knee System used in this study.
Patient Characteristics.
| Characteristics | Results |
|---|---|
| Sex, n (%) | |
| Female | 330 (73%) |
| Male | 122 (27%) |
|
| |
| Age, mean (range) | 69 (40 – 94) |
|
| |
| BMI, mean (range) | 30.2 (17.5 – 60.4) |
|
| |
| ASA Score, median (IQR) | 2 (2 – 3) |
|
| |
| Deceased, n (%) | 116 (26%) |
|
| |
| Primary Diagnosis, n (%) | |
| Osteoarthritis | 428 (95%) |
| Post-traumatic arthritis | 8 (2%) |
| Rheumatoid arthritis | 11 (2%) |
| Avascular necrosis | 1 (<1%) |
| Psoriatic Arthritis | 2 (<1%) |
| Other | 1 (<1%) |
| Missing | 1 (<1%) |
Figure 3The cumulative incidence curve with failure defined as revision of any component.
Figure 4The cumulative incidence curve for the worst-case scenario with failure defined as revision of any component or lost to follow-up.
Figure 5A Kaplan–Meier survival curve with death as failure.
Postoperative complications.
| Diagnosis | n (%) |
|---|---|
| Adhesions | 15 (53%) |
|
| |
| Persistent pain | 2 (7%) |
|
| |
| Instability | 2 (7%) |
|
| |
| Superficial infections | 2 (7%) |
|
| |
| Patellar fracture | 2 (7%) |
|
| |
| Deep infections | 1 (4%) |
|
| |
| Missing | 1 (4%) |
|
| |
| Patellar tendon rupture | 1 (4%) |
|
| |
| Tibial loosening | 1 (4%) |
|
| |
| Periprosthetic femur fracture | 1 (4%) |
Reasons for Revision (removal of one or more implant components).
| Diagnosis | n (%) |
|---|---|
| Persistent pain | 2 (22%) |
|
| |
| Instability | 2 (22%) |
|
| |
| Deep infection | 1 (11%) |
|
| |
| Tibial Loosening | 1 (11%) |
|
| |
| Periprosthetic fracture | 1 (11%) |
|
| |
| Patellar Tendon Rupture | 1 (11%) |
|
| |
| Unknown | 1 (11%) |
Distribution of radiolucent lines.
| Component | Patients with Radiolucencies, n (%) |
|---|---|
| Femoral: bone interface | 18 (4.5%) |
|
| |
| Femoral: cement/prosthesis | 2 (<1%) |
|
| |
| Patella: bone interface | 0 |
|
| |
| Patella: cement/prosthesis | 0 |
|
| |
| Tibia: bone interface (lateral) | 2 (<1%) |
|
| |
| Tibia: cement/prosthesis (lateral) | 0 |
|
| |
| Tibia: bone interface (APa) | 5 (1.2%) |
|
| |
| Tibia: cement/prosthesis (APa) | 3 (<1%) |
a: anteroposterior.
Frequency of radiolucent lines in the femoral zones.
| Radiolucent Zones | n (%) |
|---|---|
| Femoral Bone | |
| zone 1 | 14 (78%) |
| zone 2 | 0 |
| zone 3 | 0 |
| zone 4 | 6 (33%) |
| zone 5 | 0 |
| zone 6 | 0 |
| zone 7 | 0 |
|
| |
| Femoral cement/prosthesis | |
| zone 1 | 2 (100%) |
| zone 2 | 0 |
| zone 3 | 0 |
| zone 4 | 0 |
| zone 5 | 0 |
| zone 6 | 0 |
| zone 7 | 0 |
Frequency of radiolucent lines in the anteroposterior (AP) tibial zones.
| Radiolucent Zones | n (%) |
|---|---|
| Tibia: bone interface (APa) | |
| zone 1 | 4 (80) |
| zone 2 | 1 (20) |
| zone 3 | 1 (20) |
| zone 4 | 1 (20) |
| zone 5 | 1 (20) |
| zone 6 | 1 (20) |
| zone 7 | 0 |
|
| |
| Tibial: cement/prosthesis (APa) | |
| zone 1 | 2 (67) |
| zone 2 | 2 (67) |
| zone 3 | 2 (67) |
| zone 4 | 2 (67) |
| zone 5 | 0 |
| zone 6 | 0 |
| zone 7 | 0 |
a: anteroposterior.
Frequency of radiolucent lines in the Lateral Tibial zones.
| Radiolucent Zones | n (%) |
|---|---|
| Tibia: bone interface (lateral) | |
| zone 1 | 1 (50%) |
| zone 2 | 0 |
| zone 3 | 1 (50%) |
|
| |
| Radiolucent Zones | n (%) |
|
| |
| Tibia: bone interface (lateral) | |
| zone 1 | 1 (50%) |
| zone 2 | 0 |
| zone 3 | 1 (50%) |
The proportion of radiolucent line widths per femoral zone.
| Component | None | <1 mm | 1 -2 mm | >2 mm |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Femoral: Bone interface, n=18 | ||||
| zone 1 | 4 | 5 | 9 | 0 |
| zone 4 | 12 | 6 | 0 | 0 |
|
| ||||
| Femoral: cement/prosthesis, n=2 | ||||
| zone 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
| ||||
| Component | None | <1 mm | 1 -2 mm | >2 mm |
|
| ||||
| Femoral: Bone interface, n=18 | ||||
| zone 1 | 4 | 5 | 9 | 0 |
| zone 4 | 12 | 6 | 0 | 0 |
|
| ||||
| Femoral: cement/prosthesis, n=2 | ||||
| zone 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
The proportion of radiolucent line widths per tibial zone.
| Component | None | <1 mm | 1 -2 mm | >2 mm |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tibia: bone interface (APa), n=5 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 0 |
| zone 1 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| zone 2 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| zone 3 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| zone 4 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| zone 5 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| zone 6 | ||||
|
| ||||
| Tibia: bone cement/prosthesis (APa), n=3 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| zone 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| zone 2 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| zone 3 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| zone 4 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| zone 5 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| zone 6 | ||||
a: anteroposterior.