Dataset Information

Outcome of total knee arthroplasty after high tibial osteotomy: does malalignment jeopardize the results when using a posterior-stabilized arthroplasty?

ABSTRACT:

Background

The controversy regarding the outcome of total knee arthroplasties after high tibial osteotomy may relate to malalignment secondary to overcorrection after high tibial osteotomy (HTO) [1, 2] and to the type of arthroplasty itself (posterior-stabilized arthroplasty or posterior cruciate ligament-retaining prosthesis).

Questions/purpose

We asked two questions: (1) Would a posterior-stabilized arthroplasty provide sufficient constrain and improve pain and function in patients with severe malalignment due to a previous HTO? (2) Will malalignment of the previous HTO jeopardize the long-term results of a total knee reconstruction with a posterior-stabilized implant?

Patients and methods

We retrospectively reviewed 25 posterior-stabilized TKAs in 25 patients with severe valgus deformity after HTO (ranging from 10° to 20° of valgus) and compared the results with a series of matched 25 posterior-stabilized TKAs in 25 patients with normocorrection after HTO ranging from 5° of valgus to 5° of varus. Clinical, operative, and radiographic data were reviewed. Minimum follow-up was 10 years after the arthroplasty (average, 15 years; range, 10-20 years).

Results

All the knees had standard posterior-stabilized total knee arthroplasty implants. Patients with an overcorrected HTO were more likely to require a soft tissue release to balance the knee. However, Average Knee Society and Function Score improved, respectively, from 48 to 85 and from 50 to 90 points in the severely overcorrected group, versus, respectively, 50 to 89 and 52 to 97 in the normocorrected group, but the range of mobility was superior for patients with normal alignment. Fifteen-year survivorship after the arthroplasty comparison showed no significant difference between the two groups (one revision in each group).

Conclusions

Patients with an overcorrected HTO are more likely to require a soft tissue release to balance the knee. However, both groups show improvements in function and pain. With a posterior-stabilized arthroplasty, the degree of deformity has no impact on the longevity of the TKA.

SUBMITTER: Hernigou P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3757480 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Outcome of total knee arthroplasty after high tibial osteotomy: does malalignment jeopardize the results when using a posterior-stabilized arthroplasty?

Hernigou Philippe P Duffiet Pascal P Julian Didier D Guissou Issac I Poignard Alexandre A Flouzat-Lachaniette Charles Henri CH

HSS journal : the musculoskeletal journal of Hospital for Special Surgery 20130628 2

<h4>Background</h4>The controversy regarding the outcome of total knee arthroplasties after high tibial osteotomy may relate to malalignment secondary to overcorrection after high tibial osteotomy (HTO) [1, 2] and to the type of arthroplasty itself (posterior-stabilized arthroplasty or posterior cruciate ligament-retaining prosthesis).<h4>Questions/purpose</h4>We asked two questions: (1) Would a posterior-stabilized arthroplasty provide sufficient constrain and improve pain and function in patie ...[more]

PMID: 24426858

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND: Posterior stabilized total knee arthroplasty requires an intercondylar notch to accommodate the cam housing that articulates with the tibial post to create femoral rollback required for deep flexion. The volume of bone resected for the intercondylar notch varies with implant design, and newer designs may accommodate high flexion with less bone resection. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: This study aims to analyze the bone volume and density resected from the intercondylar notch for three posterior stabilized implants from a single company: a Posterior Stabilized (PS) system, a Hi-Flex system (HF), and a rounded new box-reamer (RB) system and to further assess whether the newer RB with a cylindrical cutting tool would preserve more native bone. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using a computer model, the PS, HF, and RB femoral components were digitally implanted into CT scans of 19 cadaver femurs. Nine cadavers were fit with a size 4 implant, six with size 3, and four with a size 2. The volume of intercondylar bone resected digitally for femoral preparation was measured. Bone density was measured by CT scans in Hounsfield units (HU). A paired t test was used to compare the mean volume of bone resected for each implant. RESULTS: For the size 4 femurs, the newer RB design removed 8% less intercondylar bone than the PS design (7,832?±?501 vs. 8,547?±?377 mm(3), p?<?0.001) and 28% less bone than the HF design (7,832?±?501 vs. 10,897?±?444 mm(3), p?<?0.001). The average HU for size 4 femurs for RB design was 427?±?72 (PS?=?399?±?69, p?<?0.001; HF?=?379?±?66, p?<?0.001). For the size 3 femurs, the RB design removed 12% less intercondylar bone than the PS (6,664?±?786 vs. 7,516?±?648 mm(3), p?<?0.001) and 27% less bone than the HF (6,664?±?786 vs. 9,078?±?713 mm(3), p?<?0.001). HU for size 3 femurs for the RB design was 452?±?70 (PS?=?422?±?53, p?<?0.1; HF?=?410?±?59, p?<?0.01). For the size 2 femurs, the RB design removed 5% less intercondylar bone than the PS (5,730?±?552 vs. 6,009?±?472 mm(3), p?<?0.01) and 22% less bone than the HF (5,730?±?552 vs. 7,380?±?532 mm(3), p?<?0.001). HU for size 2 femurs for the RB design was 430?±?48 (PS?=?408?±?55, p?<?0.01; HF?=?385?±?56, p?<?0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The newer RB design removes less bone from the intercondylar notch than the classic PS and HF designs in all sizes tested. The bone-conserving cuts incorporated into this newer implant design appear to preserve native bone without compromising design objectives.

Dataset Information

Outcome of total knee arthroplasty after high tibial osteotomy: does malalignment jeopardize the results when using a posterior-stabilized arthroplasty?

Background

Questions/purpose

Patients and methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Outcome of total knee arthroplasty after high tibial osteotomy: does malalignment jeopardize the results when using a posterior-stabilized arthroplasty?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets