Literature DB >> 3753173

The New Jersey Low-Contact-Stress Knee Replacement System: biomechanical rationale and review of the first 123 cemented cases.

F F Buechel, M J Pappas.   

Abstract

A mobile-bearing element, metal-backed, interchangeable knee replacement system has been designed to combine low constraint forces with low contact stresses (LCS), allowing nearly normal joint articulation and loading as well as long-term wear resistance of the implants. The system is versatile, including a large number of component options in variable sizes, and it may be used in both primary and revision arthroplasties. The overall results in the first 123 cemented cases (97 patients) with 2- to 7-year follow-up (average 3.7 years) were good to excellent in 88.6%, fair in 3.3%, and poor in 8.1%. Fair and poor results were seen predominantly in multiply operated and implant revision cases. The best results were noted in primary cases, 97.4% of which had good to excellent results. There have been no mechanical implant failures and no meniscal bearing dislocations in this series. Pain relief and restoration of function have been very gratifying with this system.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1986        PMID: 3753173     DOI: 10.1007/bf00435480

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg        ISSN: 0344-8444


  9 in total

1.  Fixation of tibial components of knee prostheses.

Authors:  P S Walker; D Greene; D Reilly; J Thatcher; M Ben-Dov; F C Ewald
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1981-02       Impact factor: 5.284

2.  An analysis of tibial component design in total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  K Murase; R D Crowninshield; D R Pedersen; T S Chang
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  1983       Impact factor: 2.712

3.  The total condylar knee prosthesis. A report of two hundred and twenty cases.

Authors:  J Insall; W N Scott; C S Ranawat
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1979-03       Impact factor: 5.284

4.  Failure in total knee arthroplasty: mechanisms, revisions, and results.

Authors:  H U Cameron; G A Hunter
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1982-10       Impact factor: 4.176

5.  Revision of total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  J N Insall; D A Dethmers
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1982-10       Impact factor: 4.176

6.  Infection in total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  J N Insall
Journal:  Instr Course Lect       Date:  1982

7.  The efficacy of low-dose heparin--warfarin anticoagulation prophylaxis after total hip replacement arthroplasty.

Authors:  T P Goss; F E Stinchfield; S W Cosgriff
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1979-06       Impact factor: 4.176

8.  An analysis of the causes of deep infection after hip and knee arthroplasties.

Authors:  M K Glynn; J M Sheehan
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1983-09       Impact factor: 4.176

9.  The pathology of failed total joint arthroplasty.

Authors:  J M Mirra; R A Marder; H C Amstutz
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1982-10       Impact factor: 4.176

  9 in total
  28 in total

1.  Revision total knee arthroplasty: a comparison of postoperative leg alignment after computer-assisted implantation versus the conventional technique.

Authors:  Lars Perlick; Holger Bäthis; Carsten Perlick; Christian Lüring; Markus Tingart; Joachim Grifka
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2004-04-08       Impact factor: 4.342

2.  Mobile-bearing prosthesis did not improve mid-term clinical results of total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Shuichi Matsuda; Hideki Mizu-uchi; Shingo Fukagawa; Hiromasa Miura; Ken Okazaki; Hideo Matsuda; Yukihide Iwamoto
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2010-04-21       Impact factor: 4.342

3.  Wear damage in mobile-bearing TKA is as severe as that in fixed-bearing TKA.

Authors:  Natalie H Kelly; Rose H Fu; Timothy M Wright; Douglas E Padgett
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 4.176

4.  Mobile versus fixed-bearing total knee arthroplasty: mid-term comparative clinical results of 216 prostheses.

Authors:  D Biau; M M Mullins; T Judet; P Piriou
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2006-03-25       Impact factor: 4.342

5.  International multi-centre survivorship analysis of mobile bearing total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  James B Stiehl; Karel J Hamelynck; Paul E Voorhorst
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2006-03-18       Impact factor: 3.075

6.  Rotating-platform has no surface damage advantage over fixed-bearing TKA.

Authors:  Kirsten Stoner; Seth A Jerabek; Stephanie Tow; Timothy M Wright; Douglas E Padgett
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 4.176

7.  The Rotaglide+ total knee replacement: a comparison of mobile versus fixed bearings.

Authors:  Lorcan McGonagle; Louisa Bethell; Natalie Byrne; Ben G Bolton-Maggs
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2012-12-27       Impact factor: 4.342

Review 8.  No differences between fixed- and mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  B L Fransen; D C van Duijvenbode; M J M Hoozemans; B J Burger
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2016-06-20       Impact factor: 4.342

9.  Osteolysis in well-functioning fixed- and mobile-bearing TKAs in younger patients.

Authors:  Young-Hoo Kim; Yoowang Choi; Jun-Shik Kim
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2010-04-01       Impact factor: 4.176

10.  Confirmation of long-term in vivo bearing mobility in eight rotating-platform TKAs.

Authors:  Michael T LaCour; Adrija Sharma; Christopher B Carr; Richard D Komistek; Douglas A Dennis
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2014-04-26       Impact factor: 4.176

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.