Medialized Dome and Anatomic Onlay Patella Designs in the Modern Posterior Stabilized Rotating Platform Total Knee Arthroplasty Demonstrate No Clinical or Radiological Differences at One Year.

BACKGROUND: A successful outcome after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) includes the restoration of patellofemoral function. Modern patella component designs in TKA include a medialized dome and more recently, an anatomic design. There is a paucity of literature comparing these 2 implants. METHODS: This prospective nonrandomized study examined 544 consecutive TKAs with patella resurfacing using a posterior-stabilized, rotating platform knee prothesis performed by a single surgeon. A medialized dome patella design was used in the first 323 cases and an anatomic design in the subsequent 221 cases. Patients were assessed preoperatively, at 4 weeks and 1-year post-TKA for Oxford Knee Score (OKS) (total, pain, and kneeling components) and range of movement (ROM). Radiolucent lines (RLLs), patellar tilts and displacements, as well as reoperations were assessed at 1-year post-TKA. RESULTS: At 1-year post-TKA, both groups demonstrated similar improvements in ROM, OKS, pain, and kneeling scores, and had a similar incidence of fixed-flexion deformity (all P > .05). Radiographically, there was no clinically significant difference in the incidence of RLLs, patellar tilts, and displacements. The prevalence of reoperations (1.8 versus 3.2%, P = .526) was similar between the designs with no patella-related complications. CONCLUSION: Both medialized dome and anatomic patella designs result in improved ROM and OKS with no patella-related complications. However, our study showed no differences between the designs at 1 year.

Análise de artigos científicos publicados em dois periódicos da área de ortopedia geral / Analysis of scientific articles published in two general orthopaedic journals

OBJETIVO: Dar uma visão geral sobre o comportamento e a contribuição científica do Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery versão Americana (JBJS-A) e versão Britânica (JBJS-B).MÉTODOS: Foram identificados 480 artigos originais em 2009 por meio de pesquisa integrada por computador e busca manual em biblioteca. Os artigos foram distribuídos em 11 categorias ortopédicas e por país, tipo e especialidade da instituição. As possíveis subvenções e as citações foram analisadas. Os Estados Unidos lideraram os demais países em número de artigos publicados (36,87%), seguidos pelo Reino Unido (20,62%) e Coreia do Sul (5,83%). A maioria dos estudos publicados foi realizada em instituições acadêmicas (65,83 %) e apenas 4,16% em instituições particulares.RESULTADOS: Quase metade dos artigos (46,24%) foi publicada em três categorias: quadril (19,16%), joelho (13,75%) e trauma (13,33%). Em ambos os periódicos, 47,15% dos artigos tiveram pelo menos uma fonte de financiamento. A revisão dos artigos publicados em periódicos relevantes permite mostrar como a pesquisa em ortopedia é distribuída em todo o mundo.CONCLUSÃO: Este estudo mostra que é necessário uma ampla variedade de periódicos para refletir em profundidade a ampla gama da ortopedia. Nível de Evidência III, Estudo Retrospectivo Comparativo.

OBJECTIVE: To give an overview of the behaviour and scientific contributions of the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery American (JBJS-A) and British Volume (JBJS-B).METHODS: 480 original articles published in 2009 were identified through a combined comprehensive computer and manual library search. Articles were assigned to 11 orthopaedic categories and by country, type and specialty of the institution. Possible grants and citations were analysed. USA led all countries in published articles (36,87%), followed by UK (20,62%) and South Korea (5,83%). Most studies published were performed at academic institutions (65,83 %), only 4,16% at private practices.RESULTS: Almost half of the articles (46,24%) were published in three categories: hip (19.16%), knee (13.75%) and trauma (13.33%). In both journals 47.15% articles had at least one funding source. A review of articles published in major journals allows to show how research in orthopaedics is distributed worldwide.CONCLUSION: This study shows that a variety of different journals is neccessary to reflect the broad spectrum of orthopaedics in depth. Level of Evidence III, Retrospective Comparative Study.