Mid-level constraint designs for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) are intended to reduce coronal plane laxity. Our aims were to compare kinematics and ligament forces of the Zimmer Biomet Persona posterior-stabilized (PS) and mid-level designs in the coronal, sagittal, and axial planes under loads simulating clinical exams of the knee in a cadaver model. We performed TKA on eight cadaveric knees and loaded them using a robotic manipulator. We tested both PS and mid-level designs under loads simulating clinical exams via applied varus and valgus moments, internal-external (IE) rotation moments, and anteroposterior forces at 0°, 30°, and 90° of flexion. We measured the resulting tibiofemoral angulations and translations. We also quantified the forces carried by the medial and lateral collateral ligaments (MCL/LCL) via serial sectioning of these structures and use of the principle of superposition.Aims
Methods
A large proportion of patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA) have severe osteoarthritis in both knees and may consider either simultaneous or staged bilateral TKA. The implications of staged versus simultaneously bilateral TKA for return to work are not well understood. We hypothesized that employed patients who underwent simultaneous bilateral TKA would have significantly fewer days missed from work compared to the sum of days missed from each surgery for patients who underwent staged bilateral TKA. The prospective arthroplasty registry at Hospital for Special Surgery was utilized. We identified 61 employed patients who had undergone staged bilateral TKA and 152 employed patients who had undergone simultaneous bilateral TKA and had completed the registry's return to work questionnaire. Baseline characteristics and patient reported outcome scores were evaluated. We used a linear regression model, adjusting for potential confounders including age, sex, pre-op BMI, and work type (sedentary, moderate, high activity, or strenuous), to analyze workdays lost after staged versus simultaneous bilateral TKA.Introduction
Methods
Hip and knee replacements are being performed at increasing rates and currently account for one of the largest procedure expenditures in the Medicare budget. Outcomes of total knee replacement (TKR) depend on surgeon, patient and implant factors. The impact that the specific implants might have on patient-reported outcomes is unknown. The primary purpose of this study was to evaluate the patient-reported functional outcomes and satisfaction after primary total knee arthroplasty in patients with osteoarthritis who underwent TKR using five different brands of posterior-stabilized implants. Specifically, the aim was to evaluate for any difference in patient-reported outcomes based on implant brand used. The hypothesis was that there would be no difference in functional outcome that could be attributed to the implant used in primary TKR. Using our institution's total joint arthroplasty registry, we identified 4,135 patients who underwent total knee replacement (TKR) using one of the five most common implant brands used at our institution. These included Biomet Vanguard (N=211 patients), Depuy/Johnson&Johnson Sigma (N=221), Exactech OptetrakLogic (N=1,507), Smith & Nephew Genesis II (N=1,414), and Zimmer NexGen (N=779). Only posterior-stabilized primary TKRs in patients with osteoarthritis were included. Patients were evaluated preoperatively using the Knee Osteoarthritis Outcomes Score (KOOS), Lower Extremity Activity Scale (LEAS), and Short Form-12 (SF-12). Demographics including age, body mass index (BMI), Charleston Comorbidity Index (CCI), ASA physical status classification, sex, and smoking status were collected. Postoperatively, 2-year KOOS, LEAS, SF-12, and satisfaction scores were compared between implant groups.Introduction
Methods
