3.8 Article

Outcomes of Stemmed versus Un-Stemmed Varus-Valgus Constrained Components in Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty

Journal

ORTHOPEDIC RESEARCH AND REVIEWS
Volume 13, Issue -, Pages 9-13

Publisher

DOVE MEDICAL PRESS LTD
DOI: 10.2147/ORR.S290015

Keywords

total knee arthroplasty; knee instability; stemmed implants; constraints

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study found that there was no increased risk of aseptic loosening or revision surgery in patients with non-stemmed primary VVC TKA compared to those with stemmed VVC TKA at mid-term follow-up, and the non-stemmed cohort had a significantly higher final total KSS.
Purpose: The necessity of stemmed components when performing a varus-valgus constrained (VVC) primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is unclear. The purpose of this study is to compare the outcomes of primary VVC TKA with and without stems at a minimum of two years. Methods: Patients in our prospectively collected database with primary VVC TKAs were identified. Patient demographics, prosthesis data, time in vivo, characteristics of revision, and radiographs and PROMs were compared between the stemmed and un-stemmed cohorts. Results: Sixty-five patients with 69 primary VVC TKAs were identified; 17 were implanted with stems and 52 without stems. Five of the stemmed TKAs (5/17) required revision at 15.1 years, while only one of the un-stemmed TKA (1/52) required a revision at 21.6 years (p=0.003) for aseptic loosening. Of the 5 stemmed TKAs requiring revision, 3 were for aseptic loosening and 2 were for PPJI. The un-stemmed cohort had a significantly higher final total KSS (p=0.048). Conclusion: There was no increase in aseptic loosening or revision surgery in patients with non-stemmed primary VVC TKA compared to those with stemmed VVC TKA at mid-term follow-up. Utilizing non-stemmed TKA with VVC in appropriate cases is safe and may reduce cost, shorten operative time, and preserve bone-stock.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available