Cargando…

Patients outcome after distal femur- and proximal tibia replacement

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Mega-knee-arthroplasty are rare and indications are heterogeneous after fracture, tumour and infection. The outcome after distal femur- and/or proximal tibia replacement are unclear. We therefore wanted to analyse the postoperative outcome in case of primary and revision surgery...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Graulich, Tilman, Kranz, Caroline, Korallus, Christoph, Örgel, Marcus, Haertle, Marco, Omar, Mohamed, Krettek, Christian, Panzica, Martin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7265735/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2325967120S00322
_version_ 1783541182797709312
author Graulich, Tilman
Kranz, Caroline
Korallus, Christoph
Örgel, Marcus
Haertle, Marco
Omar, Mohamed
Krettek, Christian
Panzica, Martin
author_facet Graulich, Tilman
Kranz, Caroline
Korallus, Christoph
Örgel, Marcus
Haertle, Marco
Omar, Mohamed
Krettek, Christian
Panzica, Martin
author_sort Graulich, Tilman
collection PubMed
description AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Mega-knee-arthroplasty are rare and indications are heterogeneous after fracture, tumour and infection. The outcome after distal femur- and/or proximal tibia replacement are unclear. We therefore wanted to analyse the postoperative outcome in case of primary and revision surgery. We hypothesize that I) Implantation of distal femur- and/or proximal tibia replacement are associated with reduced range of motion and function compared to the contralateral side and II) implantation in case of primary surgery is associated with better outcome than in case of revision surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analysed all patients in our trauma department between 1998 and 2017 who underwent a MUTARS distal femur replacement or proximal tibia replacement (Implantcast GmbH, Buxtehude, Germany). We collected general patients’ data, rang of motion, determined the Toronto extremity selvage score (TESS), musculoskeletal tumour society score (MSTS), knee society score (KSS) and Western Ontario MacMaster questionnaire (WOMAC) Score. Knee extension and flexion force was measured. RESULTS: We included 59 patients with a mean age of 65+/-20 years. Out of these we had 19 (32%) male and 40 (68%) female patients. Mean follow up (f/up) was 36+/-57 month (range: 1-218). Indication for R-TKA was periprosthetic fractures (n=14), tumour (n=16), infection (n=10), traumatic fracture (n=14), aseptic loosening (n=3) and pathologic fracture (n=2). Indication for primary implantation was given in 33 (56%) patients and for implantation in case of revision surgery in 26 (44%) patients. Mean TESS was 66+/-33, mean MSTS was 14+/-7, mean KSS was 49+/-30, mean WOMAC was 36+/-26. Mean flexion on the operated side was 83°+/-24° compared to the healthy side (115°+/-20°) (p<0.001). Mean extension force on the operated side at 60° was 20+/-12 (Nm) compared to 77+/-58 (Nm) on the not operated side (p=0.31). Mean flexion force on the operated side at 60° was 32+/-26 (Nm) compared to 53+/-42 (Nm) on the not operated side (p=0.43). In case of revision surgery significant worse function scores in the TESS and KSS could be overserved (both p<0.05). CONCLUSION: Implantation of a distal femur- and/or proximal tibia replacement are associated with loss of flexion, a trend to reduced extension and flexion power compared to the contralateral side. In case of primary surgery better functional results in terms of function Scores can be expected than in case of revision surgery.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7265735
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-72657352020-06-10 Patients outcome after distal femur- and proximal tibia replacement Graulich, Tilman Kranz, Caroline Korallus, Christoph Örgel, Marcus Haertle, Marco Omar, Mohamed Krettek, Christian Panzica, Martin Orthop J Sports Med Article AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Mega-knee-arthroplasty are rare and indications are heterogeneous after fracture, tumour and infection. The outcome after distal femur- and/or proximal tibia replacement are unclear. We therefore wanted to analyse the postoperative outcome in case of primary and revision surgery. We hypothesize that I) Implantation of distal femur- and/or proximal tibia replacement are associated with reduced range of motion and function compared to the contralateral side and II) implantation in case of primary surgery is associated with better outcome than in case of revision surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analysed all patients in our trauma department between 1998 and 2017 who underwent a MUTARS distal femur replacement or proximal tibia replacement (Implantcast GmbH, Buxtehude, Germany). We collected general patients’ data, rang of motion, determined the Toronto extremity selvage score (TESS), musculoskeletal tumour society score (MSTS), knee society score (KSS) and Western Ontario MacMaster questionnaire (WOMAC) Score. Knee extension and flexion force was measured. RESULTS: We included 59 patients with a mean age of 65+/-20 years. Out of these we had 19 (32%) male and 40 (68%) female patients. Mean follow up (f/up) was 36+/-57 month (range: 1-218). Indication for R-TKA was periprosthetic fractures (n=14), tumour (n=16), infection (n=10), traumatic fracture (n=14), aseptic loosening (n=3) and pathologic fracture (n=2). Indication for primary implantation was given in 33 (56%) patients and for implantation in case of revision surgery in 26 (44%) patients. Mean TESS was 66+/-33, mean MSTS was 14+/-7, mean KSS was 49+/-30, mean WOMAC was 36+/-26. Mean flexion on the operated side was 83°+/-24° compared to the healthy side (115°+/-20°) (p<0.001). Mean extension force on the operated side at 60° was 20+/-12 (Nm) compared to 77+/-58 (Nm) on the not operated side (p=0.31). Mean flexion force on the operated side at 60° was 32+/-26 (Nm) compared to 53+/-42 (Nm) on the not operated side (p=0.43). In case of revision surgery significant worse function scores in the TESS and KSS could be overserved (both p<0.05). CONCLUSION: Implantation of a distal femur- and/or proximal tibia replacement are associated with loss of flexion, a trend to reduced extension and flexion power compared to the contralateral side. In case of primary surgery better functional results in terms of function Scores can be expected than in case of revision surgery. SAGE Publications 2020-05-29 /pmc/articles/PMC7265735/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2325967120S00322 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This open-access article is published and distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution - NonCommercial - No Derivatives License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits the noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction of the article in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. You may not alter, transform, or build upon this article without the permission of the Author(s). For article reuse guidelines, please visit SAGE’s website at http://www.sagepub.com/journals-permissions.
spellingShingle Article
Graulich, Tilman
Kranz, Caroline
Korallus, Christoph
Örgel, Marcus
Haertle, Marco
Omar, Mohamed
Krettek, Christian
Panzica, Martin
Patients outcome after distal femur- and proximal tibia replacement
title Patients outcome after distal femur- and proximal tibia replacement
title_full Patients outcome after distal femur- and proximal tibia replacement
title_fullStr Patients outcome after distal femur- and proximal tibia replacement
title_full_unstemmed Patients outcome after distal femur- and proximal tibia replacement
title_short Patients outcome after distal femur- and proximal tibia replacement
title_sort patients outcome after distal femur- and proximal tibia replacement
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7265735/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2325967120S00322
work_keys_str_mv AT graulichtilman patientsoutcomeafterdistalfemurandproximaltibiareplacement
AT kranzcaroline patientsoutcomeafterdistalfemurandproximaltibiareplacement
AT koralluschristoph patientsoutcomeafterdistalfemurandproximaltibiareplacement
AT orgelmarcus patientsoutcomeafterdistalfemurandproximaltibiareplacement
AT haertlemarco patientsoutcomeafterdistalfemurandproximaltibiareplacement
AT omarmohamed patientsoutcomeafterdistalfemurandproximaltibiareplacement
AT krettekchristian patientsoutcomeafterdistalfemurandproximaltibiareplacement
AT panzicamartin patientsoutcomeafterdistalfemurandproximaltibiareplacement