Original Research

Implant Survivorship and Complication Rates After Total Knee Arthroplasty With a Third-Generation Cemented System: 15-Year Follow-Up

Publish date: March 28, 2018

References

1. Lützner J, Hübel U, Kirschner S, Günther KP, Krummenauer F. Langzeitergebnisse in der Knieendoprothetik. Chirurg. 2011;82(7):618-624. doi:10.1007/s00104-010-2001-8.

2. Font-Rodriguez DE, Scuderi GR, Insall J. Survivorship of cemented total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1997;345:79-86.

3. Rodriguez JA, Bhende H, Ranawat CS. Total condylar knee replacement: a 20-year followup study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001;388:10-17.

4. Van Loon CJM, Wisse MA, de Waal Malefijt MC, Jansen RH, Veth RPH. The kinematic total knee arthroplasty. Arch Orth Traum Surg. 2000;120(1-2):48-52. doi:10.1007/PL00021215.

5. Buechel FFS. Long-term followup after mobile-bearing total knee replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2002;404:40-50.

6. Ito J, Koshino T, Okamoto R, Saito T. 15-year follow-up study of total knee arthroplasty in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. J Arthroplasty. 2003;18(8):984-992. doi:10.1016/S0883-5403(03)00262-6.

7. Dixon MC, Brown RR, Parsch D, Scott RD. Modular fixed-bearing total knee arthroplasty with retention of the posterior cruciate ligament. J Bone Joint Surg. 2005;87(3):598-603. doi:10.2106/JBJS.C.00591.

8. Duffy GP, Crowder AR, Trousdale RR, Berry DJ. Cemented total knee arthroplasty using a modern prosthesis in young patients with osteoarthritis. J Arthroplasty. 2007;22(6 Suppl 2):67-70. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2007.05.001.

9. Baker PN, Khaw FM, Kirk LMG, Esler CNA, Gregg PJ. A randomised controlled trial of cemented versus cementless press-fit condylar total knee replacement: 15-year survival analysis. J Bone Joint Surg. 2007;89-B(12):1608-1614. doi:10.1302/0301-620x.89b12.19363.

10. Bozic KJ, Kinder J, Menegini M, Zurakowski D, Rosenberg AG, Galante JO. Implant survivorship and complication rates after total knee arthroplasty with a third-generation cemented system: 5 to 8 years followup. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005;430:117-124. doi:10.1097/01.blo.0000146539.23869.14.

11. Effenberger H, Berka J, Hilzensauer G, Ramsauer T, Dorn U, Kißlinger E. Miller-Galante total knee arthroplasty: the importance of material and design on the revision rate. Int Orthop. 2001;25(6):378-381. doi:10.1007/s002640100294.

12. Kirk PG, Rorabeck CH, Bourne RB. Clinical comparison of the Miller Galante I and AMK total knee systems. J Arthroplasty. 1994;9(2):131-136. doi:10.1016/0883-5403(94)90061-2.

13. Kobori M, Kamisato S, Yoshida M, Kobori K. Revision of failed metal-backed patellar component of Miller/Galante-I total knee prosthesis. J Orthop Sci. 2000;5(5):436-438. doi:10.1007/s007760070020.

14. Larson CM, Lachiewicz PF. Patellofemoral complications with the insall-burstein II posterior-stabilized total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 1999;14(3):288-292. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0883-5403(99)90053-0.

15. Matsuda S, Miura H, Nagamine R, Urabe K, Hirata G, Iwamoto Y. Effect of femoral and tibial component position on patellar tracking following total knee arthroplasty: 10-year follow-up of Miller-Galante I knees. Am J Knee Surg. 2001;14(3):152-156.

16. Miyagi T, Matsuda S, Miura H, Nagamine R, Urabe K. Changes in patellar tracking after total knee arthroplasty: 10-year follow-up of Miller-Balante I knees. Orthopedics. 2002;25(8):811-813. doi:10.3928/0147-7447-20020801-10.

17. Rao AR, Engh GA, Collier MB, Lounici S. Tibial interface wear in retrieved total knee components and correlations with modular insert motion. J Bone Joint Surg. 2002;84(10):1849-1855.

18. Anand R, Graves SE, de Steiger RN, et al. What is the benefit of introducing new hip and knee prostheses? J Bone Joint Surg. 2011;93(3):51-54. doi:10.2106/JBJS.K.00867.

Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is an orthopedic procedure with increasing demand.¹ Over the past 2 decades, a surge in TKA implants has been observed. Of the available prosthetic designs, only a few implants with long-term follow-up have been reported.^2-9 The NexGen TKA system (Zimmer Biomet) has been shown to have excellent clinical and radiographic results at an intermediate follow-up term of 8 years.¹⁰ This system is a third-generation prosthetic design that was developed to improve problems seen with its predecessors, such as the Miller-Galante II system (Zimmer Biomet), the Insall-Burstein II system (Zimmer Biomet), and the Constrained Condylar Knee (Zimmer Biomet), which were mainly for patellar maltracking.^11-17 The NexGen TKA system is a fixed-bearing system designed to include an anatomic femoral trochlea with the option of cruciate-retaining (CR), posterior-stabilized (PS), or more constrained implants. This study evaluates the long-term success of the CR and PS NexGen TKA systems. Outcomes measured include functional knee scores and reoperation rates at the 15-year follow-up. Based on the measured outcomes, potential differences between the PS and CR implants from this system are cited.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Between July 1995 and July 1997, 334 consecutive primary TKAs were performed on 287 patients at our institution. In total, 167 patients (186 knees) underwent posterior CR TKAs with the NexGen CR prosthesis (Zimmer Biomet), and 120 patients (148 knees) underwent PS TKAs using the NexGen Legacy PS prosthesis (Zimmer Biomet). This retrospective double cohort study was reviewed and approved by our Institutional Review Board. At the 15-year postoperative follow-up, 99 patients were available (Figure 1).

The CR and PS implants were used with similar frequencies by the surgeons who performed the procedures. Patients were not randomized into either the PS- or CR-implant teams; the final decision on implant selection was left to the operating surgeon’s discretion. However, in addition to standard indications for TKA (pain and disability associated with severe arthritic change seen on radiographs and refractory to conservative measures), absolute contraindications to the CR implant included severe combined deformity (flexion contraction >30° combined with a varus or valgus deformity >20°) or posterior cruciate ligament insufficiency (often associated with inflammatory arthritis).

The surgical technique for the CR and PS designs was identical, and included a median parapatellar approach, femoral rotational alignment perpendicular to the transepicondylar axis, measured resection of the flexion and extension gaps, intramedullary femoral alignment, and extramedullary tibial alignment. All components were cemented, and the patella of each patient was resurfaced. All patients received preoperative antibiotics that were continued for 48 hours postoperatively, and 4 weeks of anticoagulation with dose-adjusted warfarin to maintain an international normalized ratio of 1.5 to 2.0.

Patients were observed postoperatively at the 5- to 8-year and 15-year time points. The 5-year data were previously published in 2005 by Bozic and colleagues.¹⁰ Patients available for follow-up at the 15-year time-point were evaluated using the 100-point Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS) knee scoring system, which assigns up to 30 points for pain, 22 points for function, 18 points for range of motion, and 10 points each for quadricep strength, deformity, and instability. In addition, common medical conditions limiting patient activity were assessed; these included joint replacement; arthritis in another joint, the back, or spine; weakness or fatigue; breathing or heart ailments; and others.

Continue to: At the 15-year follow-up...