4.5 Article

Results with nine years mean follow up on one hundred and three KAPSA® uni knee arthroplasties: eighty six medial and seventeen lateral

Journal

INTERNATIONAL ORTHOPAEDICS
Volume 42, Issue 5, Pages 1061-1066

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00264-017-3717-6

Keywords

Gonarthrosis; Unicompartimental knee arthroplasty; Mobile bearing; Genu varum; Genu valgum

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose The purpose of this study was to present the results of the KAPS (R) uni knee arthroplasty system, both mobile and fixed bearing with reference to function, alignment and complications in 103 implants with a mean follow-up of nine years. Methods This was a retrospective study of 103 unicompartimental knee arthroplasties in 89 patients operated on between March 2005 and March 2010. The population was composed of 50 males and 39 females, with a mean age of 70.5 +/- 7.5 years (41 - 90). Eighty-seven patients had a genu varum deformity (84.5%), one of whom had an osteoid osteoma of the lateral tibial plateau and 16 patients had a genu valgum (15.5%). Eighty-six medial prostheses were implanted (82 mobile bearings and 4 fixed bearings) and 17 lateral prostheses (all fixed bearings) including the osteoid osteoma. Results At a mean follow-up of 107.5 months (73-138), 72 knees (58 patients) were reviewed (70%). The mean IKS score was of 173 +/- 31 points (58 - 200). The mean Oxford knee score was 21 +/- 8 points (12 - 50). The cumulated survival rate at a follow up of 132 months was 98.2%. Conclusion The KAPS (R) unicompartmental knee arthroplasty gives efficacious and safe outcomes in the majority of cases at a mean follow-up of nine years. The availability of both fixed and mobile bearings with the same instrumentation, allowing to choose the right implant intra-operatively, is a great advantage in order to avoid the occurrence of some complications, specific to mobile bearing prostheses (dislocation and over-correction).

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available