The Columbus is a relatively new implant with no published medium or long term follow-up. Its extensive use within our department led to this study to review the five-year clinical outcomesof patients who had a navigated Columbus primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) implanted between March 2005 and December 2006. Case notes, departmental and hospital databases and PACS were used to identify patients and collect routine five-year review data. Information Services Division was approached for all cases of re-admission and associated complications anywhere in Scotland. 219 (90 male, 116 left) patients were identified. Mean age was 69 years (48–89) and mean BMI 32.2 (SD 5.8). Of the 219 patients operated on, twenty-one had a complication; ten still had intermittent mild to moderate pain, three had wound problems, one had a washout, one had DVT/PE within ninety days and one was diagnosed with
One of the most controversial issues in total knee replacement is whether or not to resurface the patella. In order to determine the effects of different designs of femoral component on the conformity of the patellofemoral joint, five different knee prostheses were investigated. These were Low Contact Stress, the Miller-Galante II, the NexGen, the Porous-Coated Anatomic, and the Total Condylar prostheses. Three-dimensional models of the prostheses and a native patella were developed and assessed by computer. The conformity of the curvature of the five different prosthetic femoral components to their corresponding patellar implants and to the native patella at different angles of flexion was assessed by measuring the angles of intersection of tangential lines. The Total Condylar prosthesis had the lowest conformity with the native patella (mean 8.58°; 0.14° to 29.9°) and with its own patellar component (mean 11.36°; 0.55° to 39.19°). In the other four prostheses, the conformity was better (mean 2.25°; 0.02° to 10.52°) when articulated with the corresponding patellar component. The Porous-Coated Anatomic femoral component showed better conformity (mean 6.51°; 0.07° to 9.89°) than the Miller-Galante II prosthesis (mean 11.20°; 5.80° to 16.72°) when tested with the native patella. Although the Nexgen prosthesis had less conformity with the native patella at a low angle of flexion, this improved at mid (mean 3.57°; 1.40° to 4.56°) or high angles of flexion (mean 4.54°; 0.91° to 9.39°), respectively. The Low Contact Stress femoral component had the best conformity with the native patella (mean 2.39°; 0.04° to 4.56°). There was no significant difference (p >
0.208) between the conformity when tested with the native patella or its own patellar component at any angle of flexion. The geometry of the anterior flange of a femoral component affects the conformity of the patellofemoral joint when articulating with the native patella. A more anatomical design of femoral component is preferable if the surgeon decides not to resurface the patella at the time of operation.