4.3 Article

High early revision rate with the FPV patello-femoral unicompartmental arthroplasty

期刊

KNEE
卷 20, 期 6, 页码 482-484

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.knee.2013.07.005

关键词

Patellofemoral; Arthroplasty; Unicompartmental; Revision; FPV

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Unicompartmental patellofemoral arthroplasties are uncommon however numbers are increasing and there are a variety of new prostheses available. The Femoro-Patella Vialla (FPV, Wright Medical) device was the second most commonly used patellofemoral unicompartmental prosthesis in the 2012 British National Joint Register. There are however no published outcomes data for this device. Method: 52 consecutive cases were studied prospectively using Oxford Knee Score and American Knee Society Scores pre-operatively and at follow up to a minimum of two years. Results: Overall Oxford Knee Scores improved from 30 points pre-operatively (36.6%) to 19 points (60%) at one-year. American Knee Society Knee scores improved from 51 points pre-operatively to 81 points atone-year. Function scores improved from 42 points pre-operatively to 70 points at one-year. 13 (25%) patients had an excellent outcome with pain abolished and near normal knee function. 11(21%) patients gained very little improvement and scored their knees similar or worse to their pre-operative state. There were no infective or thromboembolic complications. Seven cases have been revised to a total knee replacement for on-going pain in six cases and progression of arthritis in the tibio-femoral compartments in one case. The patellar button was found to be very poorly fixed in all cases that were revised. Conclusion: Early results with the FPV prosthesis demonstrate that successful outcomes can be achieved however the results were unpredictable and a significant minority of patients had on-going symptoms that they found unacceptable. The early revision rate was high in this series. (C) 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据