4.3 Article

Mid-term survivorship and clinical outcomes of the Avon patellofemoral joint replacement

Journal

KNEE
Volume 25, Issue 2, Pages 323-328

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.knee.2018.01.007

Keywords

Patellofemoral arthritis; Patellofemoral replacement

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: We present the largest series of Avon patellofemoral joint (PFJ) replacements outside of the design centre. There is discussion over its efficacy and usefulness. We report an independent opinion of its indications, survivorship and outcomes.& para;& para;Methods: We prospectively collected demographic data and patient reported outcome measures (PROM's) on our cohort of Avon Patellofemoral replacements since its adoption in our unit in 2003 until 2014. We performed a retrospective review of radiographs.& para;& para;Results: We performed 103 PFJ replacements in 85 patients, 36 were male (mean age 61 - range 34 to 78) and 67 female (mean age 60 - range 38 to 82), mean follow up time was 5.6 years (range 2.9 to 14.2 years) with 93 implants still in situ. Their mean post-operative Oxford Knee Score was 36 (range seven to 48). There were nine conversions to TKR for disease progression and one revision of a femoral component for trochlear malpositioning. Mean time to revision was 2.9 years (1.0 to 6.0 years). Radiographic evidence of progression on Kellgren and Lawrence score in the un-replaced compartments was demonstrated in 23% of cases with imaging available.& para;& para;The Avon PFJ replacement delivers reproducible and effective pain relief and function to patients with isolated patellofemoral osteoarthritis. We believe PFJ replacement has an important role to play, and we will continue to perform this procedure for a carefully selected group of patients. Conversion to TKR does not and should not be regarded as failure of the index operation. (C) 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available