Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 2 of 2
Results per page:
Applied filters
The Bone & Joint Journal

Include Proceedings
Dates
Year From

Year To
The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery British Volume
Vol. 94-B, Issue 1 | Pages 56 - 61
1 Jan 2012
Kawahara S Matsuda S Fukagawa S Mitsuyasu H Nakahara H Higaki H Shimoto T Iwamoto Y

In posterior stabilised total knee replacement (TKR) a larger femoral component is sometimes selected to manage the increased flexion gap caused by resection of the posterior cruciate ligament. However, concerns remain regarding the adverse effect of the increased anteroposterior dimensions of the femoral component on the patellofemoral (PF) joint. Meanwhile, the gender-specific femoral component has a narrower and thinner anterior flange and is expected to reduce the PF contact force. PF contact forces were measured at 90°, 120°, 130° and 140° of flexion using the NexGen Legacy Posterior Stabilized (LPS)-Flex Fixed Bearing Knee system using Standard, Upsized and Gender femoral components during TKR. Increasing the size of the femoral component significantly increased mean PF forces at 120°, 130° and 140° of flexion (p = 0.005, p < 0.001 and p < 0.001, respectively). No difference was found in contact force between the Gender and the Standard components. Among the patients who had overhang of the Standard component, mean contact forces with the Gender component were slightly lower than those of the Standard component, but no statistical difference was found at 90°, 120°, 130° or 140° of flexion (p = 0.689, 0.615, 0.253 and 0.248, respectively). Upsized femoral components would increase PF forces in deep knee flexion. Gender-specific implants would not reduce PF forces


The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery British Volume
Vol. 92-B, Issue 5 | Pages 639 - 645
1 May 2010
Kim Y Choi Y Kim J

We undertook a study in which 138 female patients with a mean age of 71.2 years (51 to 82) received a standard NexGen CR-flex prosthesis in one knee and a gender-specific NexGen CR-flex prosthesis in the other. The mean follow-up period was 3.25 years (3.1 to 3.5). The aspect ratios of the standard and gender-specific prostheses were compared with that of the distal femur.

The mean post-operative Knee Society knee scores were 94 (70 to 100) and 93 (70 to 100) points and the function scores were 83 (60 to 100) and 84 (60 to 100) points for the standard implants and the gender-specific designs, respectively. The mean post-operative Western Ontario and McMaster Universities score was 26.4 points (0 to 76). Patient satisfaction, the radiological results and the complication rates were similar in the two groups. In those with a standard prosthesis, the femoral component was closely matched in 80 knees (58.0%), overhung in 14 (10.1%) and undercovered the bone in 44 (31.9%). In those with a gender-specific prosthesis, it was closely matched in 15 knees (10.9%) and undercovered the bone in 123 (89.1%).

Since we found no significant differences between the two groups with regard to the clinical and radiological results, patient satisfaction or complication rate, the goal of the design of the gender-specific CR-flex prosthesis to improve the outcome was not achieved in our patients.