Survivorship Comparisons of Ultracongruent, Cruciate-Retaining and Posterior-Stabilized Tibial Inserts Using a Single Knee System Design: Results From the Australian Orthopedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry.
TKA
polyethylene
registry
survivorship
ultracongruent
Journal
The Journal of arthroplasty
ISSN: 1532-8406
Titre abrégé: J Arthroplasty
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8703515
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 2022
03 2022
Historique:
received:
05
09
2021
revised:
28
10
2021
accepted:
01
11
2021
pubmed:
9
11
2021
medline:
9
3
2022
entrez:
8
11
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Ultracongruent (UC) tibial inserts can increase knee replacement stability, but how survivorship compares to cruciate retaining (CR) or posterior stabilized (PS) inserts is unclear. Data from a large joint registry were used to calculate the cumulative percent revision of a single popular knee design used with different inserts. There were 67,523 procedures, of which 12,434 were UC, 21,635 CR, and 33,454 PS. Revision rates and reasons for revision were analyzed. The cumulative percent revision at 18 years was 8.3% for UC, 9.2% for CR, and 8.9% for PS. There was no difference when UC was compared to CR, but PS had a higher risk of revision. Revision reasons were similar. Compared to the CR, an UC insert did not increase revision rates and was actually lower than a PS insert. An UC insert does not compromise long-term total knee arthroplasty survivorship in the Genesis II prosthesis.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Ultracongruent (UC) tibial inserts can increase knee replacement stability, but how survivorship compares to cruciate retaining (CR) or posterior stabilized (PS) inserts is unclear.
METHODS
Data from a large joint registry were used to calculate the cumulative percent revision of a single popular knee design used with different inserts. There were 67,523 procedures, of which 12,434 were UC, 21,635 CR, and 33,454 PS. Revision rates and reasons for revision were analyzed.
RESULTS
The cumulative percent revision at 18 years was 8.3% for UC, 9.2% for CR, and 8.9% for PS. There was no difference when UC was compared to CR, but PS had a higher risk of revision. Revision reasons were similar.
CONCLUSION
Compared to the CR, an UC insert did not increase revision rates and was actually lower than a PS insert. An UC insert does not compromise long-term total knee arthroplasty survivorship in the Genesis II prosthesis.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34748914
pii: S0883-5403(21)00837-8
doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2021.11.001
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
468-475Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.