» Articles » PMID: 31456063

No Difference in Failure Rates or Clinical Outcomes Between Non-stemmed Constrained Condylar Prostheses and Posterior-stabilized Prostheses for Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty

Overview
Publisher Wiley
Date 2019 Aug 29
PMID 31456063
Citations 8
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Purpose: There has been an increase in the use of unlinked constrained condylar knee (CCK) prostheses in primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) for cases with significant deformities that cannot be adequately balanced in flexion and extension. However, the literature on its outcomes is limited. The goal of this study is to evaluate whether there are any clinic or radiographic outcome differences for a primary, non-stemmed, unlinked constrained TKA as compared to a control group of posterior-stabilized (PS) TKA using the same implant design.

Methods: Clinical and radiographic outcome measures for 404 cemented, non-stemmed, primary TKAs performed by two surgeons at the same institution were retrospectively reviewed. All patients underwent primary, non-stemmed components; 241 used CCK inserts and 163 used PS inserts. Preoperative deformity, knee society scores (KSS), range-of-motion (ROM), radiographic data and revision rates were compared between the CCK and PS groups.

Results: Both groups had comparable demographics and preoperative ROM and KSS. At similar mean follow-up times (6.1 ± 1.0 years for the CCK group and 6.3 ± 1.2 years for the PS group), no significant difference was found in ROM, KSS or radiographic outcomes. Revision rates were higher for the CCK group (2%) as compared to the HF-PS (0.6%) group (n.s).

Conclusions: The particular design of cemented, primary, non-stemmed, unlinked CCK-TKA examined in this study provided similar clinical and radiographic outcomes to that of PS-TKA at midterm follow-up.

Level Of Evidence: III.

Citing Articles

Correlation of revision rate of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis of clinical studies and worldwide arthroplasty registers.

Obermayr S, Klasan A, Rasic L, Hauer G, Leitner L, Leithner A Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2024; 144(11):4873-4886.

PMID: 39404769 PMC: 11582169. DOI: 10.1007/s00402-024-05574-1.


Comparison of Survival Rate between Posterior-Stabilized and Constrained Condylar Articulations in Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Minimum 5-Year Follow-up Analysis.

Kwak W, Seon J Clin Orthop Surg. 2023; 15(4):589-596.

PMID: 37529200 PMC: 10375804. DOI: 10.4055/cios22012.


Semiconstrained posterior-stabilized total knee arthroplasty: indications, risks and benefits in primary and revision surgery.

Moisan P, Barimani B, Al Kindi M, Mutch J, Albers A Can J Surg. 2023; 66(2):E103-E108.

PMID: 36882202 PMC: 9998100. DOI: 10.1503/cjs.000622.


STUDY BETWEEN SEMI-CONSTRAINED TOTAL KNEE ARTHROPLASTY WITH OR WITHOUT INTRAMEDULLARY STEM.

Pires E Albuquerque R, Sousa Filho P, Moraes R, Franco Filho D, Mozella A, Cobra H Acta Ortop Bras. 2022; 30(4):e250492.

PMID: 36092171 PMC: 9425980. DOI: 10.1590/1413-785220223004e250492.


Fixed-Bearing Posterior-Stabilized Implant versus Constrained Condylar Knee in One-Stage Bilateral Primary Arthroplasty of the Varus Knee: A Randomized Controlled Trial with Minimum 2-year Follow-Up.

Sarzaeem M, Sayyadi S, Pourmojarab A, Omidian M, Bagherian Lemraski M, Baroutkoub M Adv Biomed Res. 2022; 11:34.

PMID: 35720221 PMC: 9201236. DOI: 10.4103/abr.abr_165_21.