Cargando…

Failure modes of patellofemoral arthroplasty—registries vs. clinical studies: a systematic review

Background and purpose — Patellofemoral arthroplasty (PFA) has been debated since early studies showed poor implant survival. Recent studies show better results. This review reports failure modes for PFA and investigates differences in data reported from registries and clinical studies. Additionally...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bendixen, Nikolaj B, Eskelund, Peter W, Odgaard, Anders
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Taylor & Francis 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6746256/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31259645
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17453674.2019.1634865
_version_ 1783451676876734464
author Bendixen, Nikolaj B
Eskelund, Peter W
Odgaard, Anders
author_facet Bendixen, Nikolaj B
Eskelund, Peter W
Odgaard, Anders
author_sort Bendixen, Nikolaj B
collection PubMed
description Background and purpose — Patellofemoral arthroplasty (PFA) has been debated since early studies showed poor implant survival. Recent studies show better results. This review reports failure modes for PFA and investigates differences in data reported from registries and clinical studies. Additionally, we report differences in failure modes among implant designs. Methods — A systematic search was performed in September 2018. All studies and registers describing failure modes of PFA were included and implant design was noted for each revision. Results — This review includes 1,299 revisions of a primary PFA reported in 47 clinical studies and 3 registers. The failure modes were: 42% OA progression, 16% pain, 13% aseptic loosening, 12% surgical error, 4% wear, 2% infection, 2% broken patellar component, 1% stiffness, 1% fracture, and 7% other. The data from registries and cohort studies differed statistically significantly in 7 out of 12 failure modes. Significant differences were found in several failure modes among implant designs. Interpretation — OA progression is the most common failure mode of PFA. There are significant differences in data on failure modes between registers and protocolled studies, notably for surgical error. The implant design significantly influences several of the failure modes. In conclusion, indication, surgical technique, and implant design are important for a successful PFA, and register-based failure modes should be interpreted with caution.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6746256
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Taylor & Francis
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-67462562019-10-01 Failure modes of patellofemoral arthroplasty—registries vs. clinical studies: a systematic review Bendixen, Nikolaj B Eskelund, Peter W Odgaard, Anders Acta Orthop Article Background and purpose — Patellofemoral arthroplasty (PFA) has been debated since early studies showed poor implant survival. Recent studies show better results. This review reports failure modes for PFA and investigates differences in data reported from registries and clinical studies. Additionally, we report differences in failure modes among implant designs. Methods — A systematic search was performed in September 2018. All studies and registers describing failure modes of PFA were included and implant design was noted for each revision. Results — This review includes 1,299 revisions of a primary PFA reported in 47 clinical studies and 3 registers. The failure modes were: 42% OA progression, 16% pain, 13% aseptic loosening, 12% surgical error, 4% wear, 2% infection, 2% broken patellar component, 1% stiffness, 1% fracture, and 7% other. The data from registries and cohort studies differed statistically significantly in 7 out of 12 failure modes. Significant differences were found in several failure modes among implant designs. Interpretation — OA progression is the most common failure mode of PFA. There are significant differences in data on failure modes between registers and protocolled studies, notably for surgical error. The implant design significantly influences several of the failure modes. In conclusion, indication, surgical technique, and implant design are important for a successful PFA, and register-based failure modes should be interpreted with caution. Taylor & Francis 2019-10 2019-07-01 /pmc/articles/PMC6746256/ /pubmed/31259645 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17453674.2019.1634865 Text en © 2019 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group, on behalf of the Nordic Orthopedic Federation http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Article
Bendixen, Nikolaj B
Eskelund, Peter W
Odgaard, Anders
Failure modes of patellofemoral arthroplasty—registries vs. clinical studies: a systematic review
title Failure modes of patellofemoral arthroplasty—registries vs. clinical studies: a systematic review
title_full Failure modes of patellofemoral arthroplasty—registries vs. clinical studies: a systematic review
title_fullStr Failure modes of patellofemoral arthroplasty—registries vs. clinical studies: a systematic review
title_full_unstemmed Failure modes of patellofemoral arthroplasty—registries vs. clinical studies: a systematic review
title_short Failure modes of patellofemoral arthroplasty—registries vs. clinical studies: a systematic review
title_sort failure modes of patellofemoral arthroplasty—registries vs. clinical studies: a systematic review
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6746256/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31259645
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17453674.2019.1634865
work_keys_str_mv AT bendixennikolajb failuremodesofpatellofemoralarthroplastyregistriesvsclinicalstudiesasystematicreview
AT eskelundpeterw failuremodesofpatellofemoralarthroplastyregistriesvsclinicalstudiesasystematicreview
AT odgaardanders failuremodesofpatellofemoralarthroplastyregistriesvsclinicalstudiesasystematicreview