Compared analysis of early clinical results of standard and morphological type-specific prosthesis in total knee arthroplasty

CHEN Shi-chang,YAN Meng-ning,YUE Bing,ZHANG Jun,WANG You
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1673-7083.2013.04.018
2013-01-01
International Journal of Orthopaedics
Abstract:Objective To study the differences of early clinical results after total knee arthroplasty(TKA)using standard and morphological type-specific femoral component by analyzing the Knee Society Score(KSS)and range of motion(ROM).Methods From February 2012 to August 2012,39 patients with knee osteoarthritis(45 knees)received TKA using Advance knee system of Wright medical technology company were selected for the study.There were 5 males(6 knees)and34females(39knees).The subjects were divided into two groups according to the component design type used:the first group included19cases(21 knees)who used morphological type-specific components,and the second group included 20 cases(24 knees)who used standard components.Basis for the selection of component type:the morphological component was selected when component overhang occured at the zone of distal femoral condyle or trochlea during TKA,otherwise the standard component was selected.Results The general utilization ratio of morphological component was 46.7%(21 knees in 45 knees).The mean duration of follow-up of first group and second group were 7.4 months and 6.7 months respectively,no any anterior knee pain,joint infection,deep vein thrombosis and periprosthetic fracture was occurred in either group.At the last follow-up,the mean KSS score of the two groups were 176.9±12.64 points and 174.4±13.87 points respectively,and the mean ROM were122.9°±10.30°and119.7°±7.60°respectively.The mean improved KSS score of the two groups were 98.60±24.98 points and95.47±22.85 points respectively,and the mean improved ROM were 14.74°±10.18°and 12.62°±9.57°respectively,showing no significant differences between the two groups(P>0.05).Conclusion Morphological type-specific femoral component could improve the bone-component matching and component overhang,especially in Chinese female patients,but it did not provide better clinical results compared with the standard component.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?