This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the influence of patellar resurfacing following cruciate-retaining (CR) and posterior-stabilized (PS) total knee arthroplasty (TKA) on the incidence of anterior knee pain, knee-specific patient-reported outcome measures, complication rates, and reoperation rates. A systematic review of MEDLINE, PubMed, and Google Scholar was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) according to search criteria. Search terms used included: arthroplasty, replacement, knee (Mesh), TKA, prosthesis, patella, patellar resurfacing, and patellar retaining. RCTs that compared patellar resurfacing versus unresurfaced in primary TKA were included for further analysis. Studies were evaluated using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network assessment tool for quality and minimization of bias. Data were synthesized and meta-analysis performed.Aims
Methods
Previous studies of failure mechanisms leading
to revision total knee replacement (TKR) performed between 1986 and
2000 determined that many failed early, with a disproportionate
amount accounted for by infection and implant-associated factors
including wear, loosening and instability. Since then, efforts have
been made to improve implant performance and instruct surgeons in
best practice. Recently our centre participated in a multi-centre evaluation
of 844 revision TKRs from 2010 to 2011. The purpose was to report
a detailed analysis of failure mechanisms over time and to see if
failure modes have changed over the past 10 to 15 years. Aseptic
loosening was the predominant mechanism of failure (31.2%), followed
by instability (18.7%), infection (16.2%), polyethylene wear (10.0%),
arthrofibrosis (6.9%) and malalignment (6.6%). The mean time to
failure was 5.9 years (ten days to 31 years), 35.3% of all revisions
occurred at less than two years, and 60.2% in the first five years.
With improvements in implant and polyethylene manufacture, polyethylene
wear is no longer a leading cause of failure. Early mechanisms of
failure are primarily technical errors. In addition to improving
implant longevity, industry and surgeons must work together to decrease
these technical errors. All reports on failure of TKR contain patients
with unexplained pain who not infrequently have unmet expectations.
Surgeons must work to achieve realistic patient expectations pre-operatively,
and therefore, improve patient satisfaction post-operatively. Cite this article:
This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to determine
the mid- to long-term clinical outcomes for a medial-pivot total
knee replacement (TKR) system. The objectives were to synthesise
available survivorship, Knee Society Scores (KSS), and reasons for
revision for this system. A systematic search was conducted of two online databases to
identify sources of survivorship, KSS, and reasons for revision.
Survivorship results were compared with values in the National Joint
Registry of England, Wales, and Northern Ireland (NJR).Objectives
Methods
