[Matched pair analysis: Innex FIXUC vs. NexGen LPS]. / Matched-Pair-Analyse: Innex FIXUC vs. NexGen LPS.

AIM: The aim of the present retrospective matched pair study was to compare the clinical results of patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA) with 2 different operation strategies: tibia first vs. femur first for ligament balancing and rotational alignment of the femoral component. METHODS: In this study 30 patients underwent TKA with the fixed bearing prosthesis Innex FIXUC between 2003 and 2005. In the same period of time the posterior stabilised prosthesis NexGen LPS was implanted in 123 patients. Out of these, 30 patients were matched to the 30 patients of the Innex group based on the parameters age, gender, height, weight and BMI. All implants were cemented. Clinical examination was rated using UCLA score, Knee Society score, Lequesne score for knees, a visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain and the Feller patellar score. Three patients in the Innex group were lost to follow-up, and 27 matched pairs could finally be analysed. RESULTS: At a mean follow-up of 25 months (Innex) and 3 years (NexGen) statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) with advantages for the NexGen were found in the UCLA activity score (4.9 vs. 5.9, p = 0.013), in part A (knee score) of the Knee Society score (78.9 vs. 91.0, p = 0.002) as well as the total score (153.9 vs. 173.2, p = 0.012), VAS (2.1 vs. 0.6, p = 0.003) and in the Lequesne knee score (5.7 vs. 3.6, p = 0.024). No statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) were found in the function score of the Knee Society score and the patellar score (Feller). CONCLUSION: In the described setting there were functional advantages for the NexGen prosthesis (femur first) at a comparable revision rate. However, satisfactory results with the Innex FIXUC are possible, too.

Assessment of acid production by various human oral micro-organisms when palatinose or leucrose is utilized.

One promising way of reducing caries is by using sucrose substitutes in food, e.g., palatinose or leucrose. Previous experiments addressing cariogenic potential of sucrose substitutes have focused mainly on Streptococcus mutans. However, given the many other micro-organisms in the oral cavity, this study compared the acid production of 100 bacterial strains representing 44 different species, by batch fermentation in a test tube containing, as a sole carbohydrate source, glucose, sucrose, palatinose, or leucrose. Selected strains were further analyzed in a fermenter. Additionally, 30 yeast strains were tested by an auxanographic sugar assimilation test. Only Lactobacillus spp., Stomatococcus mucilaginosus, Leuconostoc mesenteroides, and Weissella paramesenteroides, and some of the yeasts studied-i.e., Candida albicans, C. tropicalis, C. parapsilosis, and Saccharomyces cerevisiae-utilized leucrose and/or palatinose well. Strikingly, Stomatococcus mucilaginosus produced water-insoluble polysaccharides by fermentation of leucrose and palatinose. In the fermenter, the respective sucrose substitutes were not only cleaved but also utilized. Thus, extracellular cleavage by autochthonous micro-organisms may produce cariogenic cleavage products (glucose, fructose) that can be used by other well-characterized cariogenic bacteria found in the oral flora. Therefore, the anticariogenic potential of sucrose substitutes in food might be limited.