header advert
Results 1 - 2 of 2
Results per page:
Applied filters
General Orthopaedics

Include Proceedings
Dates
Year From

Year To
Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 95-B, Issue SUPP_34 | Pages 240 - 240
1 Dec 2013
Bhowmik-Stoker M Howard M Anthony D Hitt K Jacofsky D Smith E
Full Access

1) INTRODUCTION

Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is one of the most common orthopaedic procedures performed, and is projected to exponentially increase over the next 20 years. As primary TKA cases increase, so does the frequency of revisions. The primary goals for all TKA cases include alleviating pain and improving overall knee function. The objective of this study was to evaluate the change in outcomes as measured by the Knee Society Score (KSS) between primary and revision TKA systems.

2) METHODS

This data was collected as part of three prospective, post-market, multicenter studies comparing preoperative to 6-week data. Patients were stratified into two groups based on type of single radius knee device; Posteriorly Stabilized (PS) group and Total Stabilizer (TS) group. Early clinical outcomes based on the KSS and operative data were used to compare groups.


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 95-B, Issue SUPP_34 | Pages 75 - 75
1 Dec 2013
Howard M Anthony D Hitt K Jacofsky D Smith E Orozco F
Full Access

Introduction:

Revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) can be very complex in nature with difficulties/obstacles involving bone and soft tissue deficits, visualization and exposure, as well as alignment and fixation. Auxiliary devices such as augmentation and offset adapters help address these issues; however they increase the complexity of the reconstruction. The objective of this study was to show that use of a single radius revision TKA system allowing for minimal auxiliary revision devices can yield positive early clinical outcomes.

Methods:

This data was collected as part of a prospective, post-market, multicenter study. One hundred and twenty-five single radius revision TKA cases were evaluated. Surgical details were reviewed and cases were grouped based on type of auxiliary devices used. Group 1 included cases that used only femoral and/or tibial augments. Group 2 used femoral and/or tibial augments in conjunction with femoral and/or tibial offset adapters. Early clinical outcomes, operative data and radiographic findings were used to compare cases.