Chaidez-Rosales PA, Briseño-Estrada CA, Aguilera-Zepeda JM, Ilizaliturri-Sánchez VM, Ruiz-Suárez M

Language: Spanish
References: 12
Page: 17-20
PDF size: 349.77 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Introduction: There is no single criterion to select a posterior stabilization system for an arthroplasty; the ultracongruent system may avoid the complications observed with the drawer and the post. Objective: To assess the clinical and functional status of total knee arthroplasty with the ultracongruent system and compare the results with those published in the international literature. Material and methods: A retrospective study was carried out with a descriptive and comparative analysis of the total knee arthroplasties in which the Consensus^® system was used, to determine the operative time, the range of motion, pain, the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Scale (WOMAC), and the level of satisfaction. Results: Sixty-six arthroplasties were performed; mean age was 70.58 years; 45.5% were right and 54.5% left; the operative time was 76.84 minutes, the VAS pain score was 2.02, the WOMAC score was 17.11, and the range of motion was 96.5°  14.04. Ninety-two percent of the patients are satisfied with the surgical procedure. Conclusions: The prosthesis with the ultracongruent insert is an effective option to relieve pain in patients with knee pathology. The clinical and functional results were similar to those reported with other stabilization systems. The system is well accepted by the patients. It is recommended as an alternative to prevent the possible complications that occur with the drawer and post system.

REFERENCES

1. Hofmann AA, Tkach TK, Evanich CJ, et al: Posterior stabilization in total knee arthroplasty with use of an ultracongruent polyethylene insert. J Arthroplasty 2000; 15(5): 576-83.

2. Uvehammer J, Kärrholm J, Regnér L, et al: Concave versus posterior-stabilized tibial joint surface in total knee arthroplasty. Randomize evaluation of 47 knees. J Arthroplasty 2001; 16(1): 25-32.

3. Callaghan JJ, O’Rourke MR, Goetz DD, et al: Tibial post impingement in posterior-stabilized total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 2002; 404: 83-8.

4. Lee SY, Matsui N, Kurosaka M, et al: A posterior-stabilized total knee arthroplasty shows condylar lift-off during deep knee bends. Clin Orthop 2005; 435: 181-4.

5. Laski RS, Maruyama Y, Villanueva M, et al: Deep-dish congruent tibial component use in total knee arthroplasty. A randomized prospective study. Clin Orthop 2000; 380: 36-44.

6. Bullens PHJ, van Lood CJM, de Waal Malefijt MC, et al: Patient satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty. A comparison between subjective and objective outcome assessments. J Arthroplasty 2001; 16(6): 740-7.

7. Escobar A, Quintana JM, Bilbao A, et al: Validation of the spanish version of the WOMAC questionnaire for patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis. Clin Rheumatol 2002; 21: 466-71.

8. Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, et al: Validation study of WOMAC: A health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. J Rheumatol 1988; 15(12): 1833-40.

9. Chaidez PA, Ilizaliturri V, Valero F y cols: Factores de riesgo y manejo de la infección en la artroplastía total de rodilla. Rev Mex Ortop Traum 2001; 15: 183-6.

10. Wilson MG, Kelley K, Thornhill T: Infection as a complication of total knee replacement arthroplasty. Risk factors and treatment in sixty-seven cases. J Bone Joint Surg 1990; 72(A): 878-83.

11. Heck DA, Robinson RL, Partridge CM, et al: Patient outcomes after knee replacement. Clin Orthop 1998; 356: 93-110.

12. Miner AL, Lingard EA, Wright EA, et al: Knee range of motion after total knee arthroplasty. How important is this as an outcome measure? J Arthroplasty 2003; 18(3): 286-94.