| Literature DB >> 33354463 |
Neelam Reddy1, Mukesh K Saini1, Gattu Naresh2, Ajay Thakur2, Rajesh Podili2, Jayavardhan Reddy2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Posterior-stabilized (PS) total knee arthroplasty (TKA) poses problems such as the need for intercondylar notch bone resection as well as cam and post wear and patella clunk. Owing to its heightened anterior profile, an ultracongruent polyethylene insert prevents the excessive posterior translation of tibia in the case of a deficient or scarified posterior cruciate ligament (PCL). This study aimed to determine whether an ultracongruent insert provides satisfactory clinical and functional outcomes and midterm survival benefits.Entities:
Keywords: anterior stabilized knee; deep dished polyethylene; knee arthroplasty; knee prosthesis survival; ultracongruent insert
Year: 2020 PMID: 33354463 PMCID: PMC7746013 DOI: 10.7759/cureus.11519
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cureus ISSN: 2168-8184
Figure 1The ultracongruent polyethylene insert
Sigma Curved Plus polyethylene insert (left). The anterior profile is heightened compared with the CR insert curved (right) to achieve increased subluxation resistance.
CR: cruciate retaining.
Figure 2Intraoperative photographs
Intraoperative images showing the ultracongruent insert (left) and the usual CR insert (right).
CR: cruciate retaining.
Patient characteristics and outcomes of the patients requiring revision
| S. No | Age | Sex | Cause for revision | Timing of revision | Outcome |
| 1 | 52 | M | Periprosthetic fracture | 18 months | Good |
| 2 | 63 | F | Infection | 27 months | Good |
| 3 | 72 | M | Infection | 31 months | Good |
| 4 | 57 | M | Periprosthetic fracture | 45 months | Good |
Five-year survivorship analysis of PFC Sigma Curved plus knee prosthesis
The number of knees enrolled at the beginning of the study = 240.
Kaplan-Meir analysis was done accounting for failures and lost to follow-up cases. There were eight deaths*, eight lost to follow-up* and four failures# which were all unilateral cases.
CI: confidence interval, PFC: press-fit condylar.
| Time period (year) | At risk | Unavailable (lost to follow-up/died)* | Revised/ failed# | Survival probability estimate | 95% CI | |
| Lower limit | Upper limit | |||||
| First | 240 | 3 | 0 | 1.000 | 0.971 | 0.999 |
| Second | 237 | 5 | 1 | 0.995 | 0.964 | 0.998 |
| Third | 231 | 4 | 1 | 0.990 | 0.964 | 0.998 |
| Four | 226 | 2 | 2 | 0.981 | 0.964 | 0.998 |
| Fifth | 222 | 2 | 0 | 0.981 | 0.957 | 0.996 |
Literature review of the range of knee flexion for high-flexion knee prosthesis
PS: posterior-stabilized, CR: cruciate-retaining, PFC: press-fit condylar, RPF: rotating platform flexion.
| S. No. | Author | Year of publication | Total knee implant | Mean knee flexion angle (degrees) |
| 1 | Kim et al. [ | 2005 | High flex PS | 138.6 |
| 2 | Nutton et al. [ | 2008 | High flex PS | 127 |
| 3 | Seon et al. [ | 2009 | High flex PS | 135.3 |
| 4 | Endres and Wilke [ | 2010 | High flex CR | 122 |
| 5 | Kim et al. [ | 2012 | High flex CR | 139 |
| 6 | Maniar and Singh [ | 2012 | PS-RPF | 130 |
| 7 | Lee et al. [ | 2013 | High flex PS | 132.2 |
| 8 | Sancheti et al. [ | 2016 | INDUS | 128.17 |
| 9 | Present study | 2019 | PFC-Sigma | 125 |
Comparison of survivorship of TKA implants
PFC: press-fit condylar, PS: posterior-stabilized, RPF: rotating platform flexion, TKA: total knee arthroplasty.
| Serial No | Authors | Year of publication | Implant | Number of years | Survivorship (%) |
| 1 | Front-Rodriguez et al. [ | 1997 | Total condylar series | 21 | 90.77 |
| 2 | Shen et al. [ | 2009 | PS - all polyethylene PFC Sigma | 5.9 | 93.55 |
| 3 | Asif and Choon [ | 2006 | Cemented PFC | 6 | 94.0 |
| 4 | Kim et al. [ | 2007 | Fixed bearing-cruciate retaining | 5 | 94.0 |
| 5 | Meftah et al. [ | 2012 | RPF | 5 | 97.7 |
| 6 | Hopley and Dalury [ | 2014 | Pooled survivors of sigma Knee | 5 | 98.5 |
| 7 | Sancheti et al. [ | 2016 | INDUS knee | 5 | 98.6 |
| 8 | Present Study | 2019 | PFC Sigma Curved Plus | 5 | 98.1 |