Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Scopus||Web of Science®||Altmetric|
|Title:||International comparative evaluation of fixed-bearing non-posterior-stabilized and posterior-stabilized total knee replacements|
|Citation:||Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery: American Volume, 2014; 96(Suppl. 1):65-72|
|Publisher:||Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery|
|T Comfort, V Baste, MA Froufe, R Namba, B Bordini, O Robertsson, G Cafri, E Paxton, A Sedrakyan, S Graves|
|Abstract:||BACKGROUND: Differences in survivorship of non-posterior-stabilized compared with posterior-stabilized knee designs carry substantial economic consequences, especially with limited health-care resources. However, these comparisons have often been made between relatively small groups of patients, often with short-term follow-up, with only small differences demonstrated between the groups. The goal of this study is to compare the outcomes of non-posterior-stabilized and posterior-stabilized total knee arthroplasties with use of a unique collaboration of multiple established knee arthroplasty registries. METHODS: A distributed health data network was developed by the International Consortium of Orthopaedic Registries and was used in this study to reduce barriers to participation (such as security, propriety, legal, and privacy issues) compared with a centralized data warehouse approach. The study included only replacements in osteoarthritis patients who underwent total knee procedures involving fixed-bearing devices from 2001 to 2010. The outcome of interest was time to first revision. RESULTS: On average, not resurfacing showed a more harmful effect than resurfacing did when posterior-stabilized and non-posterior-stabilized knee replacements were compared, while the risk of revision for posterior-stabilized compared with non-posterior-stabilized knees was highest in year zero to one, followed by year one to two, years eight through ten, and years two through eight. Posterior-stabilized knees did significantly worse than non-posterior-stabilized knees did when the patella was not resurfaced. This difference was most pronounced in the first two years (year zero to one: hazard ratio [HR] = 2.15, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.56 to 2.95, p < 0.001; year one to two: HR = 1.61, 95% CI = 1.48 to 1.75, p < 0.001). When the patella was resurfaced, posterior-stabilized knees did significantly worse than non-posterior-stabilized knees did. This was again most pronounced in the first two years (year zero to one: HR = 1.75, 95% CI = 1.27 to 2.42, p = 0.001; year one to two: HR = 1.31, 95% CI = 1.19 to 1.45, p < 0.001). There was a reduced risk of revision with a patient age of more than sixty-five years (HR = 0.57, 95% CI = 0.55 to 0.60, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: We found that fixed non-posterior-stabilized total knee arthroplasty performed better with or without patellar resurfacing than did fixed posterior-stabilized total knee arthroplasty. This effect was most pronounced in the first two years. The risk of revision for posterior-stabilized total knee arthroplasties was reduced with patellar resurfacing. Also, a patient age of more than sixty-five years and female gender reduced the risk of revision.|
|Rights:||Copyright © 2014 by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Incorporated.|
|Appears in Collections:||Medicine publications|
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.