Introduction

Patellar tracking in total knee replacements has been extensively studied, but little is known about patellar tracking in isolated patellofemoral replacements. We compared patellar tracking and the position of the patellar groove in the natural knee, followed by implantation of the femoral component of a PFR (patella unresurfaced) and after implantation of the femoral & patellar component of the PFR.

Introduction

Mobile-bearing TKRs allow some axial rotation and may provide a more natural patellar movement. The aim was to compare patellar kinematics among the normal knee, fixed-bearing and mobile-bearing TKR.

Introduction: Mobile bearing TKRs may allow some axial rotation and also compensate for a slight tibiofemoral rotational mismatch. This is thought to provide better kinematics and a more natural patellar movement. This theoretical advantage has not been verified in clinical studies for the tibiofemoral kinematics. However, little is known about the patellofemoral kinematics of mobile bearing TKRs. The aim was to compare patellar kinematics among the anatomic knee, fixed bearing TKR and mobile bearing TKR.

Methods: Optical computer navigation marker arrays (Brainlab) were attached to the femur, tibia and patella of 9 whole lower extremities (5 fresh cadavers). The trial components of a fixed bearing posterior stabilised TKR (FB) (Sigma PFC, Depuy) were implanted using a tibia first technique. Then the tibia component was changed to a posterior stabilised mobile bearing tibia component (MB) (Sigma RP Stabilised). The patellae were not resurfaced. The knees were moved through a cycle of flexion and extension on a CPM machine. Medial/lateral shift and tilt was measured relative to the patella position in the natural knee at full extension always with soft tissue closure. The path of the trochlea and patellar groove of the femoral component was registered. Values are expressed as mean+/−one standard deviation. Statistical analysis: two tailed paired Student’s T-test.

Results: M/L shift: There was a tendency for the patella to track 2mm more laterally throughout the flexion range with a FB or MB TKR compared to the natural knee, but this did not reach significance.

Tilt: The patella in the natural knee tilted progressively laterally from extension to flexion, plateauing at 50° of flexion (20°: 1.9+/−2.7°, 40°: 5.6+/−5.4°, 60°: 6.2+/−6.4°, 80°:6.5+/−7.3°, 90°: 6.4+/−7.7°). With a FB or MB TKR the patellae also tilted laterally up to 50 degree of flexion, but then started to tilt back medially, reaching the neutral position again at 90°. The patellae of the FB and MB TKRs were significantly more medially tilted at 50° to 90° of flexion compared to the natural knee. But there was no difference between the FB and MB TKRs. (Fixed bearing: 20°: 2.5+/−7.2° p=0.30, 40°: 3.7°+/−6.5° p=0.15, 60°: 3.1+/−5.8° p=0.02, 80°:1.2+/−6.5° p=0.001, 90°: 0.3+/−7.2° p=0.001, Mobile bearing: 20°: 0.3+/−5.5° p=0.27, 40°: 3.6+/−5.2° p=0.08, 60°: 2.1°+/−5.8 p=0.01, 80°: 0.2+/−6.8 p=0.003, 90°: −0.6+/−7.3 p=0.002; vs. natural)

Trochlea position: The centre of the patellar groove of the femur component was more lateral than the trochlea by 2–5mm, it also extended 10mm further proximally.

Conclusion: There are kinematic differences in patellar tracking between the natural and a FB/MB TKR. This may be due to a slightly different position of the patellar groove. The patellar kinematics of the MB TKR is not more natural compared to the FB TKR.

A neck of femur fracture is known to be a high risk factor for the development of pressure sores with an associated morbidity, mortality and cost. We have attempted to identify risk factors in these patients for the development of pressure sores

We have analysed prospectively collected data of 4654 consecutive patients (1003 males/3473 females).

3.8% developed pressure sores in the sacral, buttock or heel areas. Patients factors that increased the risk of pressure sores were increased age (82.1 years versus 76.6 years), lower mental test score (5.7 versus 6.7), diabetes mellitus (pressure sore incidence 9.4%), higher ASA score (3.0 versus 2.7) and lower admission haemoglobin concentration (120gms versus 124gms). Those patients with an extracapsular fracture were more likely to develop pressure sores compared to patients with an intracapsular fracture (4.5% versus 3.1%). Being male was not a risk factor. Among surgical factors related to an increased risk was a fall in blood pressure during surgery (5.6%). Patients who underwent a dynamic hip screw were more likely to develop pressure sores (pressure sore incidence 4.7%). Patients with an intracapsular fracture treated with internal fixation were less likely to develop pressure sores in comparison to those fractures treated with a hemiarthroplasty or a sliding hip screw (2.0% versus 4.7 versus 4.4%). No relationship was seen related to length of surgery of type of anaesthesia.

Our study indicates that the current incidence of pressure sores is lower that that previously reported (30%). Whilst it is possible in a large population of patients to determine factors that increase the risk of pressure sores, these are not sufficiently reliable to be used for an individual patient.