Logo of The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery (Br)
Quick search:        
          Advanced Search
Guest Access | Sign In
Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery - British Volume, Vol 91-B, Issue 1, 58-63.
doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.91B1.20484  
Copyright © 2009 by British Editorial Society of Bone and Joint Surgery
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow FrenchSpanishGermanItalianRomanianPolishRussianCzechGreek
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow My Folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hooper, G.
Right arrow Articles by Frampton, C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Hooper, G.
Right arrow Articles by Frampton, C.

The low contact stress mobile-bearing total knee replacement

A PROSPECTIVE STUDY WITH A MINIMUM FOLLOW-UP OF TEN YEARS

G. Hooper, FRACS, Associate Professor, Head of Department1; A. Rothwell, FRACS, Emeritus Professor1; and C. Frampton, PhD, Statistician1

1 Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Christchurch Public Hospital, Private Bag, Christchurch, New Zealand.

Correspondence should be sent to Mr G. Hooper at Leinster Orthopaedic Centre, 151 Leinster Road, Christchurch, New Zealand; e-mail: ghooper{at}leinsterortho.co.nz

We have examined the outcome of 400 consecutive patients who underwent total knee replacement with the Low Contact Stress mobile-bearing system between 1993 and 1994 and were followed up for a minimum of ten years. All operations were performed by surgeons in Christchurch, New Zealand, who used no other knee prosthesis during the study time.

At ten years after operation 238 patients (244 knees) remained for independent clinical and radiological assessment. There was a significant improvement (p < 0.001) in the postoperative knee scores at one, three, seven and ten years, although a slight deterioration in the score occurred between seven and ten years which did not reach statistical significance. The survival for polyethylene wear or loosening was 97% (95% CI 96 to 98) and survival using reoperation for any cause was 92% (95% CI 90 to 94) at 12 years. Polyethylene wear was more common in the meniscal-bearing component, with five knees requiring revision and a further eight demonstrating early wear. Osteolysis was not seen in the rotating platform component, but was present in three of the meniscal-bearing knees.

There was no association between the radiological alignment at one year and those knees that subsequently required revision. However, there was an association between the overall limb alignment and the Western Ontario McMasters University score (p < 0.001).

The Low Contact Stress mobile-bearing total knee replacement has proved to be a reliable implant at ten years when used in primary knee replacement irrespective of the deformity and diagnosis.






(c) British Editorial Society of Bone and Joint Surgery All Rights Reserved
Registered charity no: 209299     Print ISSN: 0301-620X
Hip, Knee, Trauma, Upper limb, Foot & Ankle, Paediatrics, Oncology, Spine, Arthroplasty, General