Logo Logo
Hilfe
Hilfe
Switch Language to English

Bauer, Leandra; Woiczinski, Matthias; Thorwachter, Christoph; Melsheimer, Oliver; Weber, Patrick; Grupp, Thomas M.; Jansson, Volkmar und Steinbrueck, Arnd (2021): Secondary Patellar Resurfacing in TKA: A Combined Analysis of Registry Data and Biomechanical Testing. In: Journal of Clinical Medicine, Bd. 10, Nr. 6, 1227

Volltext auf 'Open Access LMU' nicht verfügbar.

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.

Dokument bearbeiten Dokument bearbeiten