The Prevalence And Predictive Factors For Constrained Condylar Tka
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.29284/9z525r55Keywords:
Total knee arthroplasty with a confined condylar design.Abstract
Background: The essential factors for a successful total knee arthroplasty (TKA) include achieving optimal alignment, ensuring proper balance, and correcting deformities. Certain cases including severe deformities, substantial bone defects, stiffness, and instability are exceedingly challenging to rectify only through soft tissue release and necessitate the use of restricted prostheses, even in initial total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Under these conditions, the restricted condylar knee (CCK) method is the optimal selection.
Aim of the This study sought to determine the prevalence and predicted characteristics related to the necessity of limited insert utilization in primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA).
Patients and method: Retrospective study for 286 patients from January 2020 to January 2023 enrolling all patients underwent total knee arthroplasty arthroplasty in hospital of surgical specialties in medical city and two private hospitals in Baghdad. All patients underwent total knee arthroplasties (TKA) conducted by the same surgical team.
We conducted a retrospective analysis of the preoperative and intraoperative factors related to the utilization of restricted inserts. A total of 42 knees needed constrained condylar stemmed total knee arthroplasty were found.
Study population: 286 patients (76 males and 210 female) age from 27 to 79 years old. The inclusion criteria required that all patients underwent complete knee arthroplasty. Patients with revision knee arthroplasty and valgus knees were excluded from the study.
Data collection and analysis: factors related to preoperative and intraoperative steps. The evaluated patient's age, BMI, range of motion, Knee Society Score (KSS), sex, (KL grade), alignment determined through anteroposterior (AP) standing radiographs.
Results: The restricted implant was utilized in 42 out of 286 knees (14.6%).
Preoperative and intraoperative clinical variables linked to an elevated modified probability of limited insert utilization encompassed significant varus deformity. A surgeon operating the curvature was developed to ascertain the appropriate threshold value of 17.6° for the tibiofemoral angle, indicating the requirement for a restricted implant.
Conclusion: The preoperative factors examined comprised the patient's age, body mass index, range of motion, Knee Society Score (KSS), sex, Kallgren and Lawrence grading, alignment assessed via anteroposterior (AP) standing radiographs, and the gravity of the anatomical varus angle as indicated by the tibiofemoral angle
References
1. Brauer S. Knee osteoarthritis. J Physiother. 2015;61(2):100.
2. Parvizi J, Kim GK. High Yield Orthopaedics. 2010;329–30.
3. Nagelli CV, Wordeman SC, Stasi SD, Hoffman J, Marulli T, Hewett TE. Neuromuscular Training Improves Biomechanical Deficits at the Knee in Anterior Cruciate Ligament–Reconstructed Athletes. Clin J Sport Med. 2019; Publish Ahead of Print(NA;):NA;
4. Neogi T, Zhang Y. Osteoarthritis prevention. Curr Opin Rheumatol. 2011; 23(2): 185–91.
5. Clement ND, Deehan DJ. Knee biomechanics. Bone Joint Res. 2018; 7(5): 325–6.
6. Carr BC, Goswami T. Knee implants – Review of models and biomechanics. Mater Design. 2009;30(2):398–413.
7. Walker PS, Manktelow ARJ. Comparison between a Constrained Condylar and a Rotating Hinge in revision knee surgery. Knee. 2001;8(4):269–79.
8. Chen Z, Zhang J, Zhang X, Jin ZM. UHMWPE Biomaterials for Joint Implants, Structures, Properties and Clinical Performance. 2019;191–239.
9. Yang F, Liu W. Knee joint biomechanics of simplified 24 Tai Chi forms and association with pain in individuals with knee osteoarthritis: A pilot study. Osteoarthr Cartil Open. 2021;3(2):100149.
10. Collins K, Fajardo R, Harkey M, Knake J, Lisee C, Wilcox L, et al. Knee symptoms do not affect walking biomechanics among women 6 months after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. J Orthop Res. 2022;40(10):2240–7.
11. Andriacchi TP, Mikosz RP. Basic science of the knee and total knee arthroplasty. Curr Opin Orthop. 1992;3(1):13–7.
12. Sabatini L, Risitano S, Rissolio L, Bonani A, Atzori F, Massè A. Condylar constrained system in primary total knee replacement: our experience and literature review. Ann Transl Medicine. 2017;5(6):135.
13. Anderson JA, Baldini A, MacDonald JH, Pellicci PM, Sculco TP. Primary Constrained Condylar Knee Arthroplasty without Stem Extensions for the Valgus Knee. Clin Orthop Relat R. 2006;442(NA;):199–203.
14. Vince KG. Surgical Techniques in Total Knee Arthroplasty. 2002;75–80.
15. Vanin N, Panzica M, Dikos G, Krettek C, Hankemeier S. Rotational alignment in total knee arthroplasty: intraoperative inter- and intraobserver reliability of Whiteside’s line. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2011; 131(11):1477–80.
16. Matsueda M, Gengerke TR, Murphy M, Lew WD, Gustilo RB. Soft Tissue Release in Total Knee Arthroplasty: Cadaver Study Using Knees Without Deformities. Clin Orthop Relat R. 1999;366(366):264–73.
17. Mullaji AB, Padmanabhan V, Jindal G. Total knee arthroplasty for profound varus deformity: technique and radiological results in 173 knees with varus of more than 20 degrees. J Arthroplast. 2004;20(5):550–61.
18. Scuderi GR, Bourne RB, Noble PC, Benjamin JB, Lonner JH, Scott WN. The New Knee Society Knee Scoring System. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012; 470(1):3–19.
19. INSALL JN, DORR LD, SCOTT RD, NORMAN W. Rationale, of The Knee Society Clinical Rating System. Clin Orthop Relat R. 1989; 248(NA;): 13–4.
20. Mehdikhani KG, Moreno BM, Reid JJ, Nieves A de P, Lee YY, Valle AGD. An Algorithmic, Pie-Crusting Medial Soft Tissue Release Reduces the Need for Constrained Inserts Patients With Severe Varus Deformity Undergoing Total Knee Arthroplasty. J Arthroplast. 2016;31(7):1465–9.
21. Lachiewicz PF, Falatyn SP. Clinical and radiographic results of the total condylar III and constrained condylar total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast. 1996; 11(8):916–22.
22. Freking A, Biehl M, Braun C, Kinzel W, Meesmann M. Receiver operating characteristics of perceptrons: Influence of sample size and prevalence. Phys Rev E. 1999;60(5):5926–31.
23. Hajian-Tilaki K. Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) Curve Analysis for Medical Diagnostic Test Evaluation. Casp J Intern Medicine. 2012; 4(2): 627–35.
24. Martin JR, Beahrs TR, Stuhlman CR, Trousdale RT. Complex Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty. J Bone Jt Surg. 2016;98(17):1459–70.
25. Moussa ME, Lee YY, Patel AR, Westrich GH. Clinical Outcomes Following the Use of Constrained Condylar Knees in Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty. J Arthroplast. 2016;32(6):1869–73.
26. Wilke BK, Wagner ER, Trousdale RT. Long-Term Survival of Semi-Constrained Total Knee Arthroplasty for Revision Surgery. J Arthroplast. 2014; 29(5):1005–8.
27. Mancino F, Falez F, Mocini F, Sculco PK, Maccauro G, Martino ID. Is varus-valgus constraint a reliable option in complex primary total knee arthroplasty? A systematic review. J Orthop. 2021;24:201–11.
28. Girard J, Amzallag M, Pasquier G, Mulliez A, Brosset T, Gougeon F, et al. Total knee arthroplasty in valgus knees: Predictive preoperative parameters influencing a constrained design selection. Orthop Traumatology Surg Res. 2009; 95(4):260–6.
29. Thiengwittayaporn S, Hongku N, Uawisetwathana U, Sansawat P. When to Use a Condylar Constrained Insert in Non-Stemmed Posterior-Stabilized Total Knee Arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Surg. 2020;12(4):448–
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
