Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 3 of 3
Results per page:
The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 98-B, Issue 7 | Pages 939 - 944
1 Jul 2016
Boonen B Schotanus MGM Kerens B van der Weegen W Hoekstra HJ Kort NP

Aims

We wished to compare the clinical outcome, as assessed by questionnaires and the rate of complications, in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) undertaken with patient-matched positioning guides (PMPGs) or conventional instruments.

Patients and Methods

A total of 180 patients (74 men, 106 women; mean age 67 years) were included in a multicentre, adequately powered, double-blind, randomised controlled trial. The mean follow-up was 44 months (24 to 57).


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 98-B, Issue 6 | Pages 786 - 792
1 Jun 2016
Schotanus MGM Sollie R van Haaren EH Hendrickx RPM Jansen EJP Kort NP

Aims

This prospective randomised controlled trial was designed to evaluate the outcome of both the MRI- and CT-based patient-specific matched guides (PSG) from the same manufacturer.

Patients and Methods

A total of 137 knees in 137 patients (50 men, 87 women) were included, 67 in the MRI- and 70 in the CT-based PSG group. Their mean age was 68.4 years (47.0 to 88.9). Outcome was expressed as the biomechanical limb alignment (centre hip-knee-ankle: HKA-axis) achieved post-operatively, the position of the individual components within 3° of the pre-operatively planned alignment, correct planned implant size and operative data (e.g. operating time and blood loss).


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 95-B, Issue 9 | Pages 1204 - 1208
1 Sep 2013
Kerens B Boonen B Schotanus MGM Lacroix H Emans PJ Kort NP

Although it has been suggested that the outcome after revision of a unicondylar knee replacement (UKR) to total knee replacement (TKR) is better when the mechanism of failure is understood, a comparative study on this subject has not been undertaken.

A total of 30 patients (30 knees) who underwent revision of their unsatisfactory UKR to TKR were included in the study: 15 patients with unexplained pain comprised group A and 15 patients with a defined cause for pain formed group B. The Oxford knee score (OKS), visual analogue scale for pain (VAS) and patient satisfaction were assessed before revision and at one year after revision, and compared between the groups.

The mean OKS improved from 19 (10 to 30) to 25 (11 to 41) in group A and from 23 (11 to 45) to 38 (20 to 48) in group B. The mean VAS improved from 7.7 (5 to 10) to 5.4 (1 to 8) in group A and from 7.4 (2 to 9) to 1.7 (0 to 8) in group B. There was a statistically significant difference between the mean improvements in each group for both OKS (p = 0.022) and VAS (p = 0.002). Subgroup analysis in group A, performed in order to define a patient factor that predicts outcome of revision surgery in patients with unexplained pain, showed no pre-operative differences between both subgroups.

These results may be used to inform patients about what to expect from revision surgery, highlighting that revision of UKR to TKR for unexplained pain generally results in a less favourable outcome than revision for a known cause of pain.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:1204–8.