Comparison of total knee arthroplasty with highly congruent anterior-stabilized bearings versus a cruciate-retaining design.

BACKGROUND: The use of a highly conforming, anterior-stabilized bearing has been associated with clinical success in a limited number of studies. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We compared Knee Society scores, radiographic results, complication rates, and revision rates with the use of anterior-stabilized bearings compared with cruciate-retaining (CR) bearings. METHODS: A series of 382 patients with 468 primary total knee arthroplasties (TKAs) between 2003 and 2008 with minimum 2-year followup were reviewed. Anterior-stabilized bearings comprised 49% (n = 228) of the sample and CR bearings consisted of 51% (n = 240). The decision to use an anterior-stabilized bearing was based on integrity of the posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) intraoperatively or after sacrifice of the PCL to achieve soft tissue balance. The tibial and femoral component designs were the same regardless of bearing choice. Outcomes were measured with Knee Society scores, complications, revision TKA, and survival. Radiographs were analyzed for component alignment and evidence of loosening. RESULTS: There was no difference in Knee Society knee scores, radiographic alignment, component loosening, manipulation rate, major complications, or time to revision for patients between the two groups. However, the CR group had significantly more revisions than the anterior-stabilized group (21 CR [1.5%] versus seven anterior-stabilized [4.6%], p = 0.03) at a minimum followup of 5 months (mean, 42 months; range, 5-181 months). CONCLUSIONS: The use of a highly congruent anterior-stabilized bearing for PCL substitution has comparable clinical and radiographic results to traditional CR TKA. These results suggest that this approach is an effective method to achieve stability without the PCL in primary TKA.

Hip pain in the young, active patient: surgical strategies.

Hip disorders in young patients likely exist as a spectrum of prearthritic and arthritic conditions. With the increasing recognition of these disorders, surgical options are being popularized and more patients are being treated at a younger age. Hip surgeons must develop a careful set of evidenced-based indications and follow surgical outcomes in a rigorous, scientific manner. Hip arthroscopy can be used to successfully treat some hip disorders, including labral tears, with or without femoroacetabular impingement, resulting in mechanical symptoms. Long-term outcomes after arthroscopy are determined by the condition of the cartilage at the time of surgery. Patients with preoperative radiographic evidence of moderate to severe arthritis have poor outcomes when treated with arthroscopy. Open joint preservation procedures (including periacetabular osteotomy and surgical hip dislocation with osteochondroplasty) can be done in the absence of substantial arthritis to treat hip dysplasia, femoroacetabular impingement, and related conditions. The results of these procedures are good in appropriately selected patients at short-term to midterm follow-ups. In the presence of severe arthritis, joint replacement is the treatment of choice. Total hip arthroplasty using uncemented acetabular and femoral fixation provides reliable osseointegration; however, long-term results in young patients have historically been compromised by bearing surface wear, osteolysis, and component loosening. Contemporary, highly cross-linked polyethylene and ceramic-on-ceramic bearings have durable results, low complication rates, and offer the potential of long-term survivorship in this high-demand population. In general, metal-on-metal implants have higher complication rates versus other bearing surface options and should be avoided. The best results of hip resurfacing are seen in men younger than 55 years with large femoral head sizes. Although implant survivorship is comparable to that of total hip arthroplasty, the sequelae of metal wear debris continue to cause concern.

Stiffness of knee-spanning external fixation systems for traumatic knee dislocations: a biomechanical study.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the relative stiffness of four common external fixation (XF) configurations used to span and stabilize the knee after knee dislocation. METHODS: Synthetic composite femora and tibiae connected with cords were used to simulate a knee. Four configurations of external fixation were tested: anterior femoral pins with monotube (XF1), anterolateral femoral pins with monotube (XF2), anterolateral femoral pins with two connecting rods (XF3), and hinged ring fixator (XF4). Six specimens of each configuration were loaded nondestructively in varus/valgus, anterior-to-posterior shear, flexion/extension, axial compression, internal/external torsion, and failure in varus. RESULTS: XF2 was stiffer than XF1 in varus, valgus, and axial loading (P < 0.01) demonstrating that anterolateral pins provided greater stiffness than anterior femoral pins. XF3 was stiffer than XF2 in varus, valgus, and anterior-to-posterior shear (P < 0.002), indicating that two connecting rods provided greater stiffness than the monotube. XF4 was similar to the other configurations in anterior-to-posterior shear and torsion, indicating the hinged frame provided adequate stability. The average load to failure in varus mode was 250 N-m, which was far beyond the nondestructive loading of all specimens. There was no statistical difference between the different constructs in load to failure. CONCLUSIONS: The stiffest construct for external fixation of a knee dislocation was achieved when pins were placed anterior lateral on the femur and two connecting rods were used. A stiffer construct may provide a better clinical outcome and we therefore recommend this frame configuration.