scholarly journals The Effect on Long Term Survivorship of Surgeon Preference for Posterior Stabilized or Minimally Stabilized Total Knee Replacement: An Analysis of 63416 Cases from the AOANJRR

2017 ◽  
Vol 5 (5_suppl5) ◽  
pp. 2325967117S0017
Author(s):  
Christopher Vertullo ◽  
Peter Lewis ◽  
Michelle Lorimer ◽  
Stephen Graves

Introduction & Aims: Controversy still exists as to the optimum management of the PCL in TKR, with registry data suggesting Posterior Stabilised TKR have a higher Cumulative Percent Revision (CPR) compared to Minimally Stabilised TKR. Proponents of PS TKR suggest this difference is due to selection bias as result of preferential use of PS TKR in complex or more severe cases. To remove this selection bias, we aimed to compare CPR based on surgeon TKR stability preference to treat with PS or MS TKR rather than actual prosthesis type received. Method: Observational series. An analysis of AOANJRR data from 1999 – 2014 was utilized to identify two cohorts of high volume surgeons who preferred to use routinely either MS or PS TKR. Only fixed tibial inserts and patellar resurfacing TKR were included. A MS preferring surgeon used MS TKR at least 90% of the time and a PS preferring surgeon used PS TKR at least 90% of the time. Consequently, each patient cohort included both PS and MS TKR in differing proportions. Results: Procedures undertaken by PS preferring surgeons had a significantly higher risk of revision (CPR (Hazard Ratio = 1.45 (95% CI 1.30, 1.63), p< 0.001). There was a higher rate of revision for loosening and infection in the PS group. Of the 39 941 TKR with cemented fixation of both femur and tibia, the PS preferring surgeons had a higher CPR than the MS preferring cohort (HR = 1.55 (1.33, 1.80), p< 0.001). Regardless of whether the polyethylene was crosslinked or non-crosslinked, the MS preferring surgeons had a lower CPR compared to the PS preferring surgeons. Conclusions: In this analysis, procedures undertaken by surgeons who mainly preferred to use PS TKR had a higher rate of revision than those that mainly used MS TKR. This finding was irrespective of patient age and was also evident when fixation and the type of polyethylene used was taken into account.

The Knee ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 329-331 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Yeoh ◽  
Nick Nicolaou ◽  
Richard Goddard ◽  
Henry Willmott ◽  
Kim Miles ◽  
...  

2008 ◽  
Vol 75 (2) ◽  
pp. 163-166 ◽  
Author(s):  
Klemmens Trieb ◽  
Maximillian Schmid ◽  
Thomas Stulnig ◽  
Wolfgang Huber ◽  
Axel Wanivenhaus

2017 ◽  
Vol 34 (10) ◽  
pp. 665-672 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dario Bugada ◽  
Massimo Allegri ◽  
Marco Gemma ◽  
Andrea L. Ambrosoli ◽  
Giuseppe Gazzerro ◽  
...  

1997 ◽  
Vol 79 (4) ◽  
pp. 575-82 ◽  
Author(s):  
DAVID R. DIDUCH ◽  
JOHN N. INSALL ◽  
W. NORMAN SCOTT ◽  
GILES R. SCUDERI ◽  
DAVID FONT-RODRIGUEZ

2019 ◽  
Vol 33 (03) ◽  
pp. 242-246
Author(s):  
James W. Pritchett

AbstractThis study reviewed the early use of polyurethane for total knee resurfacing, the long-term results of polycarbonate urethane (PCU) for total knee replacement and conducted wear simulator testing of PCU. In 1959 and 1960, 10 patients underwent total articular polyurethane knee replacement (polyethylene was not available). The polyurethane was placed on the articular surface of the femur with metal surfaces on the tibia and patella. In 1996 and 1997, four patients received a newer PCU tibial insert in revision procedures; all had well-fixed prostheses, but no revision polyethylene implants were available. In addition, this study evaluated six new PCU tibial inserts in a 10-million cycle (Mc) wear simulator. All 10 of the early knees performed well clinically and 2 knees were functional for more than 30 years. Of the four more recent patients, all knees remain functional at more than 20 years' follow-up with no signs of wear or osteolysis. Wear simulator testing found mean material loss of 14.2 mg/Mc which equates to a volumetric wear of 11.9 mg/Mc, similar to the wear of conventional polyethylene. Polyurethane performs well as conventional polyethylene but not better than current cross-linked polyethylene tibial inserts. Its large wear particles (mean, 11 µm) and biocompatibility are less likely to cause an inflammatory response leading to pain and bone loss. Newer, superior polyurethanes can again be considered a candidate material for the tibial insert of a total knee replacement. A larger study may be able to validate polyurethane as an alternative material for joint replacement.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document