Abstract
The German Arthroplasty registry (EPRD) has shown that different prosthesis systems have different rates of secondary patellar resurfacing: four years after implantation, the posterior-stabilized (PS) Vega prosthesis has a 3.2% risk of secondary patellar resurfacing compared to the cruciate-retaining (CR) Columbus prosthesis at 1.0% (both Aesculap AG, Tuttlingen, Germany). We hypothesized that PS implants have increased retropatellar pressure and a decreased retropatellar contact area compared to a CR design, which may lead to an increased likelihood of secondary patellar resurfacing. Eight fresh frozen specimens (cohort 1) were tested with an established knee rig. In addition, a possible influence of the registry-based patient collective (cohort 2) was investigated. No significant differences were found in patient data-cohort 2-(sex, age). A generally lower number of PS system cases is noteworthy. No significant increased patella pressure could be detected with the PS design, but a lower contact area was observed (cohort 1). Lower quadriceps force (100 degrees-130 degrees flexion), increased anterior movement of the tibia (rollback), greater external tilt of the patella, and increasing facet pressure in the Vega PS design indicate a multifactorial cause for a higher rate of secondary resurfacing which was found in the EPRD patient cohort and might be related to the PS' principle function.
Dokumententyp: | Zeitschriftenartikel |
---|---|
Fakultät: | Medizin |
Themengebiete: | 600 Technik, Medizin, angewandte Wissenschaften > 610 Medizin und Gesundheit |
Sprache: | Englisch |
Dokumenten ID: | 96842 |
Datum der Veröffentlichung auf Open Access LMU: | 05. Jun. 2023, 15:24 |
Letzte Änderungen: | 17. Okt. 2023, 14:53 |