16
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      The outcome of cemented vs. cementless fixation of a femoral component in total knee replacement (TKR) with the identification of radiological signs for the prediction of failure

      ,
      The Knee
      Elsevier BV

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          A survival analysis and radiological review were performed on a series of femoral total knee arthroplasty (TKA) prostheses either cemented (150 cases) or cementless, press-fit (201 cases). The internal surface of the femoral components were shot-blast CoCr alloy. The incidence of loosening of the femoral component at 6 years was 9.8% with cementless fixation and 0.6% with cement (P<0.05) at 6 years. Amongst uncemented prostheses, there was no difference in the survival or radiological outcome with the use of a stem as against two condylar pegs. The clinical need for revision may be predicted radiologically 3 years after operation in symptomless patients by noting a change in component position combined with progressive radiolucent lines and osteolysis. Thus, radiological follow-up should be continued for a minimum of 3 years after knee replacement. The use of a stem enabled the detection of radiolucent lines which we believe were missed around prostheses with condylar pegs. Thus, the use of a stem improves the prediction of failure (but does not improve fixation).

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Journal
          The Knee
          The Knee
          Elsevier BV
          09680160
          December 2000
          December 2000
          : 7
          : 4
          : 233-238
          Article
          10.1016/S0968-0160(00)00060-0
          11104915
          0bf16185-47c7-4b10-825f-92932cf34fbc
          © 2000

          https://www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/

          History

          Comments

          Comment on this article

          scite_
          0
          0
          0
          0
          Smart Citations
          0
          0
          0
          0
          Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
          View Citations

          See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

          scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

          Similar content1,116

          Cited by5