LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:

OpenAIRE is about to release its new face with lots of new content and services.
During September, you may notice downtime in services, while some functionalities (e.g. user registration, login, validation, claiming) will be temporarily disabled.
We apologize for the inconvenience, please stay tuned!
For further information please contact helpdesk[at]openaire.eu

fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Stewart, TD; Whitwell, G; Pai, SK, (2013)
Publisher: Springer-Verlag
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects:

Classified by OpenAIRE into

mesheuropmc: musculoskeletal system, musculoskeletal diseases
Introduction The aim of this study was to assess the long-term performance of a cemented total knee replacement utilising an All Polyethylene Tibial (APT) component and in addition to perform an engineering analysis of any failures to help refine surgical technique. Materials and methods A total of 26 patients had a total knee replacement performed using a cemented Depuy Press Fit Condylar (PFC) APT component and a cruciate retaining femoral component. At final review all patients were assessed using The Knee Society Score together with radiographs. An engineering analysis simulated loading conditions of the implants that failed and these were compared with the performance of a modular metal-backed Tibial (MBT) component. Results A total of 20 patients were reviewed at mean time of 116 months following surgery. Knee Society Knee Scores and Function Scores in this cohort were 84/100 and 58/100, respectively. Two patients required revision for tibial component failure. Pre-operatively both had valgus deformities and in each case the tibial tray had been lateralised leaving a gap on the medial side where the APT component had no rigid support. The engineering analysis demonstrated that the volume of highly strained cancellous bone was greater in the APT design compared with the MBT design when a model with a 3 mm medial gap was loaded. The stiffer MBT base plate acted more rigidly and shielded the stress applied to the proximal tibial cancellous bone. Conclusion The APT component demonstrated satisfactory clinical and radiographic performance at long-term follow up. Appropriate cortical support of the APT component is important. The implant should be used with a degree of caution in patients with severe deformities and osteoporosis.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 1. Leeds Musculoskeletal Biomedical Research Unit, Leeds Teaching Hospitals Trust.
    • 2. Institute of Medical and Biological Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, The University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT. Email:
    • 10. Pomeroy DL, Schaper LA, Badenhausen WE, Suthers KE, Smith MW, Empson JA, Curry JI (2000) Results of all-polyethylene tibial components as a cost-saving technique. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 380:140-3.
    • 11. Parks NL, Engh GA, Topoleski LD, Emperado J (1998) Modular tibial insert micromotion. A concern with contemporary knee implants. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 356:10-5.
    • 12. Rao AR, Engh GA, Collier MB, Lounici S (2002) Tibial interface wear in retrieved total knee components and correlations with modular insert motion. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 84-A(10):1849-55.
    • 13. Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD, Scott WN (1989) Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 248:13-4.
    • 14. Ewald FC (1989) The Knee Society total knee arthroplasty roentgenographic evaluation and scoring system. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 248 :9-12.
    • 15. Ding M, Danielsen CC, Hvid I (2001) Bone density does not reflect mechanical properties in earlystage arthrosis. Acta Orthopaedica 72(2):181-85
    • 16. Ducheyne P, Kagan A 2nd, Lacey JA (1978) Failure of total knee arthroplasty due to loosening and deformation of the tibial component. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 60:384-91.
    • 17. Hamilton LR (1982) UCI total knee replacement. A follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 64:740-4.
    • 18. Faris PM, Ritter MA, Keating EM, Meding JB, Harty LD (2003) The AGC all-polyethylene tibial component: a ten-year clinical evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 85-A(3):489-93.
    • 19. Ritter MA, Berend ME, Meding JB, Keating EM, Faris PM, Crites BM (2001) Long-term followup of anatomic graduated components posterior cruciate-retaining total knee replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 388:51-7.
    • 20. Matsuda S, Grogan R, Stewart T, Stone M, Fisher J (2006) Stress analysis of the all polyethylene tibial tray. J Bone Joint Br. 88B SUPP III:395.
    • 21. KAT Trial Group, Johnston L, MacLennan G, McCormack K, Ramsay C, Walker A (2009) The Knee Arthroplasty Trial (KAT) design features, baseline characteristics, and two-year functional outcomes after alternative approaches to knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 91(1):134-41.
    • 22. Voigt J, Mosier M (2011) Cemented all-polyethylene and metal-backed polyethylene tibial
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article

Cookies make it easier for us to provide you with our services. With the usage of our services you permit us to use cookies.
More information Ok