Médecine

Paramédical

Autres domaines


S'abonner

Poor results of the Optetrak™ cemented posterior stabilized knee prosthesis after a mean 25-month follow-up: Analysis of 110 prostheses - 02/06/12

Doi : 10.1016/j.otsr.2012.04.008 
C.-E. Thelu a, G. Pasquier a, b, , C. Maynou a, b, H. Migaud a, b
a Faculté de médecine, Lille Nord-de-France University, 59045 Lille cedex, France 
b Lille Teaching Hospital Center, hôpital Roger-Salengro, CHU de Lille, avenue Émile-Laine, 59037 Lille, France 

Corresponding author. Tel.: +33 6 08 69 53 88.

Bienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
Article gratuit.

Connectez-vous pour en bénéficier!

Summary

Introduction

The introduction of a new knee arthroplasty model, even if it differs from a validated implant by only a few details, should be followed by rigorous assessment. The Optetrak™ cemented posterior stabilized knee prosthesis evolved from the Insall prosthesis with a smaller tibial keel associated with a higher tibial cam and increased femorotibial congruency as well as a more posterior-stabilized trochlea.

Hypothesis

We hypothesized that this implant with only minor modifications to the Insall prosthesis would provide as favorable results as the Insall prosthesis.

Materials and methods

A continuous series of 110 prostheses (106 patients) implanted between 2005 and 2007 was retrospectively analyzed with a mean follow-up of 25 months (range, 12–42 months) by an independent observer. The follow-up was based on the IKS score and the radiological assessment was conducted by three senior surgeons.

Results

The mean IKS score was 83.7 (range, 13–100) points at the last follow-up, the mean function score was 82.6 (range, 30–100 points), and mean flexion was 120° (range, 80–140°). Seventeen patients (15%) were disappointed or dissatisfied, 25 knees (22%) were painful, requiring regular painkillers. The prostheses had a satisfactory mechanical axis, with a mean HKA angle of 177.4±4°, but 25 prostheses (22%) presented rims evolving toward tibial implant loosening, and 24 (21%) developed signs of patellofemoral conflict. With follow-up less than 5 years, nine cases were revised for tibial loosening, three for patellofemoral instability, and one for patellofemoral pain. The cases of tibial loosening were particular because they occurred at the cement–tibial-implant interface. The cumulated survival rate at 36 months was 80.97±9.1% and 76.74±12% at 45 months.

Discussion

This tibial implant with a small keel does not resist the stresses applied by posterior stabilization, with notably a higher level of stress than the Insall prosthesis from which it was derived. In cases of centering defect, the design of the trochlea can lead to impingement between the edges of the patella and the prominent edges of the prosthetic trochlea. We have suspended implantation of this prosthesis and continue to monitor the progression of patients having received these implants.

Level of evidence

Level IV, retrospective study.

Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.

Keywords : Total knee arthroplasty, Cemented knee prosthesis, Posterostabilized knee arthroplasty, Knee, Optetrak™


Plan


© 2012  Publié par Elsevier Masson SAS.
Ajouter à ma bibliothèque Retirer de ma bibliothèque Imprimer
Export

    Export citations

  • Fichier

  • Contenu

Vol 98 - N° 4

P. 413-420 - juin 2012 Retour au numéro
Article précédent Article précédent
  • The Oxford Knee Score: Compared performance before and after knee replacement
  • J.-Y. Jenny, Y. Diesinger
| Article suivant Article suivant
  • Patellar denervation in total knee arthroplasty without patellar resurfacing: A prospective, randomized controlled study
  • M.A. Altay, C. Ertürk, N. Altay, R. Akmeşe, U.E. Işıkan

Bienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement ou un achat à l’unité.

Déjà abonné à cette revue ?

;

Mon compte


Plateformes Elsevier Masson

Déclaration CNIL

EM-CONSULTE.COM est déclaré à la CNIL, déclaration n° 1286925.

En application de la loi nº78-17 du 6 janvier 1978 relative à l'informatique, aux fichiers et aux libertés, vous disposez des droits d'opposition (art.26 de la loi), d'accès (art.34 à 38 de la loi), et de rectification (art.36 de la loi) des données vous concernant. Ainsi, vous pouvez exiger que soient rectifiées, complétées, clarifiées, mises à jour ou effacées les informations vous concernant qui sont inexactes, incomplètes, équivoques, périmées ou dont la collecte ou l'utilisation ou la conservation est interdite.
Les informations personnelles concernant les visiteurs de notre site, y compris leur identité, sont confidentielles.
Le responsable du site s'engage sur l'honneur à respecter les conditions légales de confidentialité applicables en France et à ne pas divulguer ces informations à des tiers.