Varus alignment of the tibial component up to seven degrees is not associated with poor long-term outcomes in a neutrally aligned total knee arthroplasty

Author(s):  
Francisco Antonio Miralles-Muñoz ◽  
Marta Rubio-Morales ◽  
Laiz Bello-Tejada ◽  
Santiago González-Parreño ◽  
Alejandro Lizaur-Utrilla ◽  
...  
The Surgeon ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 18 (6) ◽  
pp. 335-343
Author(s):  
Navnit Makaram ◽  
Louisa Woods ◽  
Nicholas Beattie ◽  
Simon B. Roberts ◽  
Gavin J. Macpherson

1994 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 347-349 ◽  
Author(s):  
Merrill A. Ritter ◽  
Kimberly D. Carr ◽  
E.Michael Keating ◽  
Philip M. Faris

Author(s):  
David A. Crawford ◽  
Joanne B. Adams ◽  
Michael J. Morris ◽  
Keith R. Berend ◽  
Adolph V. Lombardi

AbstractThe literature is mixed on the long-term fate of knees that undergo manipulation under anesthesia (MUA). The purpose of this study is to evaluate the long-term outcomes and survivorship of patients who required a MUA after primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) compared with a cohort of patients who did not undergo a MUA. Between 2003 and 2007, 2,193 patients (2,783 knees) underwent primary TKA with 2-year minimum follow-up; 182 knees (6.5%) had a MUA. Patients who had a manipulation were younger (p < 0.001) and had worse preoperative range of motion (ROM) (p < 0.001). Postoperative ROM, Knee Society clinical (KSC), functional, and pain (KSP) scores, revisions, and survivorship were compared between MUA and no MUA. Mean follow-up was 9.7 years. MUA patients had lower postoperative ROM (p < 0.001), change in ROM (p < 0.001), KSC (p < 0.001), KSP (p < 0.001), and change in KSP scores (0.013). Revisions occurred in 18 knees (9.9%) in the MUA group compared with 77 knees (3%) without a MUA (p < 0.001). Most common reason for revision after MUA was continued stiffness (50%). Relative risk for revision after one MUA was 2.01 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1–3.8, p < 0.001) and after three or more MUAs were 27.02 (95% CI, 16.5–44.1, p < 0.001). Ten-year survival after MUA was 89.4% (95% CI, 87.1–91.7%) compared with 97.2% (95% CI, 96.9–97.5%) without a MUA (p < 0.001). Patients who undergo a MUA after primary TKA may have a knee at risk with higher revision rates, worse long-term clinical scores, ROM and survivorship.


2019 ◽  
Vol 101 (20) ◽  
pp. 1875-1885 ◽  
Author(s):  
Seung Joon Rhee ◽  
Hyun-Jung Kim ◽  
Chang-Rack Lee ◽  
Chang-Wan Kim ◽  
Heui-Chul Gwak ◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Vol 136 ◽  
pp. 15-16
Author(s):  
Grzegorz Kwiecien ◽  
Gregory Lamaris ◽  
Bahar Bassiri Gharb ◽  
Trevor Murray ◽  
Mark F. Hendrickson ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
B. Harikrishnan ◽  
Anjan Prabhakara ◽  
Gururaj R. Joshi

<p class="abstract"><strong>Background:</strong> Long term survivorship of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is significantly dependant on prostheses alignment. The debate on optimal referencing for femoral component is largely resolved with Intra-medullary jigs reproducing superior alignment. However there is still a contention about whether intramedullary or extramedullary jigs are better for tibial referencing. This study aims to compare the accuracy of tibial component alignment in TKA using intramedullary and extramedullary tibial referencing jigs.</p><p class="abstract"><strong>Methods:</strong> Between December 2012 and September 2014, 66 primary conventional cemented TKAs were performed using Nexgen-LPS Flex (Zimmer) implants in 55 patients, 50-80 y old (mean 65.54 y) with osteoarthritis/rheumatoid arthritis. Intramedullary and extramedullary tibial referencing was used in alternate patients undergoing TKA after excluding patients with BMI <span style="text-decoration: underline;">&gt;</span>35 kg/m<sup>2</sup>, knee deformity <span style="text-decoration: underline;">&gt;</span>15<sup>0</sup>,excessive tibial bowing, previous fractures/surgeries/retained metalwork around knee. Postoperatively, tibial component alignment (TCA) in coronal plane was assessed using AP radiograph of leg. A 3<sup>º</sup> cutoff from neutral mechanical axis (i.e., 90<sup>o</sup>±3<sup>o</sup>) was considered acceptable.<strong></strong></p><p class="abstract"><strong>Results:</strong> The intramedullary group (n=33) had 4 outliers (TCA &gt;93<sup>º</sup> or &lt;87<sup>º</sup>) whereas the extramedullary group (n=33) had 7 outliers (p=0.511). The difference in mean TCA between intramedullary and extramedullary groups was not statistically significant [90.70±2.43 and 90.55±2.17 (p=0.790)]. There were no significant per-operative/post-operative complications in either group.</p><p><strong>Conclusions:</strong> We conclude that both intramedullary and extramedullary tibial referencing guides can be used to achieve desired tibial component alignment (90±3<sup>º</sup>) in TKA. However the surgeon should appreciate the benefits and deficiencies of either types of tibial referencing and use whichever is suited in a particular case. </p>


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document