Cargando…

Proximal tibial resorption in a modern total knee prosthesis

BACKGROUND: In an effort to minimize backside polyethylene wear and osteolysis associated with titanium tibial baseplates, many manufacturers have transitioned to cobalt chromium alloys. Recent literature has implicated thicker cobalt chromium designs as a potential source of increased stress shield...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Deen, Justin T., Clay, Terry B., Iams, Dane A., Horodyski, MaryBeth, Parvataneni, Hari K.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5994597/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29896562
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.artd.2017.10.005
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: In an effort to minimize backside polyethylene wear and osteolysis associated with titanium tibial baseplates, many manufacturers have transitioned to cobalt chromium alloys. Recent literature has implicated thicker cobalt chromium designs as a potential source of increased stress shielding and resorption. We report the incidence of proximal tibial bone resorption in a large consecutive series of patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty, with a modern total knee design. METHODS: Four hundred thirty-two consecutive primary total knee arthroplasties, performed by 2 fellowship-trained arthroplasty surgeons were identified over a 24-month period. In addition to review of the medical records, analysis of preoperative and postoperative radiographs was performed. Utilizing a novel classification system, the severity of resorption was quantified and correlated with patient and implant characteristics. RESULTS: After exclusions, 339 knees were evaluated in 292 patients. Mean follow-up was 13.2 months (range 6-41). Resorption was present in 119 knees (35.1%). Average time to diagnosis of bone loss was 6.9 months (range 2-32) postoperatively. There was a statistically significant difference between resorption and nonresorption groups with regards to gender and preoperative alignment. Most cases were classified as Grade 1. During the study period, 2 patients required revision for aseptic tibial loosening. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that proximal tibial resorption is common with this particular implant, particularly in men and patients with preoperative varus deformity. Although this typically occurs relatively early in postoperative period and in most cases appears to remodel and stabilize, its ultimate clinical significance and effect on implant survivorship remains unclear.