These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: [Results of self-centering patellofemoral prosthesis: a retrospective study of 57 implants].
    Author: Gadeyne S, Besse JL, Galand-Desme S, Lerat JL, Moyen B.
    Journal: Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot; 2008 May; 94(3):228-40. PubMed ID: 18456057.
    Abstract:
    PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: The aim of this retrospective analysis was to report results obtained with a self-centering patellofemoral prosthesis. We wanted to determine whether self-centering still has indications for the treatment of patellofemoral osteoarthritis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This was a continuous series of 57 knees operated on since 1986 in the same center for implantation of a self-centering patellofemoral prosthesis (Medinov then Depuy). Eight patients died and four were lost to follow-up. Two knees were excluded from the analysis after revision with a PFP. We report here the outcome of 43 prostheses at mean follow-up of six years two months (range 78 months to 15 years). The IKS score (200 points) and the ADL scale (in %) were recorded. The position of the prosthesis was assessed on plain X-rays. Mean age at implantation was 67.2 years. The main reasons for surgery were osteoarthritis secondary to dysplasia (60%) and primary disease (31.1%). RESULTS: At last follow-up, the IKS score was 157.2 points (range 76-195). The mean ADL score was 74.1/100 (48.8-96.3). The IKS evaluation showed good outcome in 66.7% of knees. The ADL scale gave a less satisfactory outcome: 57.7% good outcome for this scale which takes into account all knee functions for activities of daily life. Outcome was better among patients with trochlear dysplasia. Eleven patients (24.4%) had had revision surgery for total knee arthroplasty. Preoperatively, the trochlear angle was smaller in revision cases (p=0.023). In these patients, the first prosthesis was more anterior (p=0.004) with a greater horizontal axis (p=0.015). DISCUSSION: Our outcomes were less satisfactory than the average results in the literature. It must be noted however, that the concept of a good outcome depends on the scale used for assessment. We found in our series a 10% difference between the ADL scale and the IKS score. Independently of the assessment scale used, outcome was better in knees with osteoarthritis secondary to dysplasia. An analysis of the X-ray findings disclosed technical errors leading to failure. The outcome of patellofemoral prosthesis depends essentially on two factors: technical precision and patient selection. CONCLUSION: In light of these findings, we have come to limit still further the rare indications for patellofemoral prostheses. The typical indication is isolated advanced patellofemoral osteoarthritis secondary to patellofemoral dysplasia unresponsive to medical treatment in patients aged 50-70 years. Revision with a total knee arthroplasty required changing the patellar insert if worn. We have not had any particular problem with revision total knee arthroplasty after patellofemoral prosthesis.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]