The LCS RPS knee system is based on the successful LCS mobile bearing prosthesis, and has been introduced with the intention of improving post-operative knee flexion. The aim of this study is to report a high incidence of significant patellofemoral crepitus when this prosthesis is used without patella resurfacing. A successful arthroscopic technique to treat this complication will be described.

We present a retrospective review of a single surgeon series of LCS RPS knee arthroplasty. All procedures were performed using a standard technique with cemented components. The patella was not resurfaced in any of the presented cases. The knee society score, patellofemoral score (Baldini et al, 2006), BMI, range of motion, and post-operative radiographs were obtained for all patients. In addition the presence of patellofemoral crepitus was assessed and rated as either none, mild (for limited ROM), moderate (throughout entire ROM), or severe(catching/clunk). An arthroscopic technique to treat this complication was developed.

A total of 56 patients were reviewed at a mean follow-up of 16 months (range 9–22). The mean age at time of operation was 70 (range 50–87), and mean BMI was 29 (range 18–42). A lateral release was performed in 7 cases (12%). Mean knee society score was 77 (range 35–92), patellofemoral score 73 (range 25–100), and ROM 115 degrees (range 85–135). Significantly, patellofemoral crepitus was severe in 12 (21%) patients, moderate in 21 (37%), mild in 15 (26%), and absent in 9 (16%). In 4 patients arthroscopic resection of the proximal pole of the patella has resulted in complete resolution of severe crepitus with increases in patellofemoral (mean 25) and knee society (mean 7) scores, and, ROM (mean 15 degrees). One of these patients at 6 month follow-up has reported return of moderate crepitus. Similar resolution of crepitus has been seen in 3 cases which were revised to resurface the patella. As part of this ongoing study a non-randomised comparison group who received patellar resurfacing at the primary procedure has produced no cases of moderate or severe crepitus.

In conclusion patella resurfacing is required when using the LCS RPS prosthesis to prevent an unacceptably high rate of moderate to severe patellofemoral crepitus. Both arthroscopic patelloplasty and revision to resurface the patella have resulted in resolution of this problem. Potential biomechanical causes for this problem will be presented.

Introduction: The use of anterior vertebral staples in the fusionless correction of scoliosis has received increased attention in recent literature. Several animal studies have shown stapling to be effective in modulating vertebral growth. In 2005 Betz (1) published the only clinical series to date. Despite the increasing volume of literature suggesting the efficacy of this treatment, little is known about it’s biomechanical consequences. In 2007 Puttlitz (2) measured the change in spinal range of motion after staple insertion in a bovine model. They found a small but statistically significant decrease in range of motion in axial rotation and lateral bending. The clinical significance of this is questionable as the differences were only a few degrees over three vertebral levels. A well designed biomechanical evaluation of the effects of staple insertion on spinal stability is needed. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of insertion of a laterally placed anterior vertebral staple on the stiffness characteristics of a single motion segment.

Methods: Four-pronged shape memory alloy staples were inserted into fourteen individual bovine thoracic motion segments. A displacement controlled six degree-of-freedom robotic facility was used to test control and staple constructs through a pre-determined range of motion in flexion, extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation. All data were synchronised with robot position data and filtered using moving average methods. The stiffness in each condition was calculated in units of Nm/degree of rotation. Paired t-tests were used to compare results.

Results: Stiffness measurements in the control condition correlated with previously published measures (3). A significant decrease in stiffness (p< 0.05) following staple insertion was found in flexion, extension, lateral bending away from the staple, and axial rotation away from the staple. Stiffness for axial rotation towards the stapled side was significantly greater than for away. A near significant increase in lateral bend stiffness away from the staple compared with towards was also seen.

Discussion: These results suggest that staple insertion consistently decreased stiffness in all directions of motion. This is contrary to the results of Puttlitz (2), which reported a reduced range of motion (i.e. increased stiffness) for some motions using moment-controlled testing. This decrease in stiffness could not be explained by changes in anatomy or tissue properties between specimens, as each stapled motion segment was compared with its own intact state. Addition of the staple would intuitively be expected to increase motion segment stiffness, however we suggest that the staple prongs may cause sufficient disruption to the vertebral bodies and endplates to slightly reduce overall stiffness. Hence, growth modulation may be achieved through physical disruption of the endplate, rather than static mechanical stress. Further research is planned to investigate the proportion of load carried by the staple during spinal movement and the anatomical effect of the staple on the physis. In conclusion, anterior vertebral stapling causes a slight but significant decrease in the stiffness of treated motion segments.