Download PDF
J Knee Surg 2010; 23(4): 181-186
DOI: 10.1055/s-0030-1268693
ORIGINAL ARTICLE

© Thieme Medical Publishers

Results of Porous-Coated Anatomic and Duracon Total Knee Arthroplasty

Jonathon Pennington1 , John Quinlan1 , Terry Doyle2 , Ali Bayan1 , Jean-Claude Theis1
  • 1Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Dunedin, New Zealand
  • 2Department of Radiology, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
06 December 2010 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

The Duracon total knee replacement and its forerunner the Porous-Coated Anatomic (PCA) knee system have been associated with good results. This study reviews a series of 181 knee replacements performed with these systems by seven general orthopedic surgeons with follow-up to a mean of 6.7 years. The mean Knee Society knee and function scores were 72 and 68. The mean Western Ontario and MacMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index score was 76, and the mean 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey result was 55. A mean flexion of 104 degrees was recorded, and 93.8% of patients rated their satisfaction as good to excellent. Fifty-five percent of patients had minor radiographic lucencies—these were of questionable clinical significance. Seven patients required revision. These knee systems used in a relatively low-volume general unit provide consistent results comparable with those from larger arthroplasty units.

KEYWORDS

Total knee arthroplasty - follow-up - Duracon prosthesis

REFERENCES

  • 1 Hungerford D S, Kenna R V. Preliminary experience with a total knee prosthesis with porous coating used without cement.  Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1983;  176 95-107
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Hungerford D S, Kenna R V, Krackow K A. The porous-coated anatomic total knee.  Orthop Clin North Am. 1982;  13 103-122
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Chana R, Shenava Y, Nicholl A P, Lusted F J, Skinner P W, Gibb P A. Five- to 8-year results of the uncemented Duracon total knee arthroplasty system.  J Arthroplasty. 2008;  23 677-682
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Gruber G, Schlechta C, Stürz H. Ten-year follow-up of a bicondylar unlinked knee endoprosthesis with particular reference to mid-term results.  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 1998;  117 316-323
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Ebert F R, Krackow K A, Lennox D W, Hungerford D S. Minimum 4-year follow-up of the PCA total knee arthroplasty in rheumatoid patients.  J Arthroplasty. 1992;  7 101-108
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Mont M A, Becher O J, Lee C W, LaPorte D M, Hungerford D S. Patellofemoral complications after total knee arthroplasty: a comparison of Modular Porous-Coated Anatomic with Duracon prostheses.  Am J Orthop. 1999;  28 241-247
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Mont M A, Yoon T R, Krackow K A, Hungerford D S. Eliminating patellofemoral complications in total knee arthroplasty: clinical and radiographic results of 121 consecutive cases using the Duracon system.  J Arthroplasty. 1999;  14 446-455
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Brinker M R, Haddad Jr R J, Cook S D, Cash J D, James P T, Tan E H. Four-year average follow up of cemented PCA total knees: clinical and roentgenographic analysis.  Orthopedics. 1990;  13 831-837
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Eskola A, Vahvanen V, Santavirta S, Honkanen V, Slätis P. Porous-coated anatomic (PCA) knee arthroplasty. 3-year results.  J Arthroplasty. 1992;  7 223-228
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Insall J N, Dorr L D, Scott R D, Scott W N. Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system.  Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989;  248 13-14
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Bellamy N, Buchanan W W, Goldsmith C H, Campbell J, Stitt L W. Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee.  J Rheumatol. 1988;  15 1833-1840
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Dunbar M J, Robertsson O, Ryd L, Lidgren L. Appropriate questionnaires for knee arthroplasty. Results of a survey of 3600 patients from The Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Registry.  J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2001;  83 339-344
    Google Scholar
  • 13 Ware Jr J, Kosinski M, Keller S D. A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity.  Med Care. 1996;  34 220-233
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Mintz A D, Pilkington C A, Howie D W. A comparison of plain and fluoroscopically guided radiographs in the assessment of arthroplasty of the knee.  J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1989;  71 1343-1347
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Vyskocil P, Gerber C, Bamert P. Radiolucent lines and component stability in knee arthroplasty. Standard versus fluoroscopically-assisted radiographs.  J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1999;  81 24-26
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Ewald F C. The Knee Society total knee arthroplasty roentgenographic evaluation and scoring system.  Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989;  248 9-12
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Murray D W, Carr A J, Bulstrode C. Survival analysis of joint replacements.  J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1993;  75 697-704
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Kim Y H. Knee arthroplasty using a cementless PCA prosthesis with a porous-coated central tibial stem. Clinical and radiographic review at five years.  J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1990;  72 412-417
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Collins D N, Heim S A, Nelson C L, Smith III P. Porous-coated anatomic total knee arthroplasty. A prospective analysis comparing cemented and cementless fixation.  Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1991;  267 128-136
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Brick G W, Scott R D. The patellofemoral component of total knee arthroplasty.  Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1988;  231 163-178
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Mokris J G, Smith S W, Anderson S E. Primary total knee arthroplasty using the Genesis Total Knee Arthroplasty System: 3- to 6-year follow-up study of 105 knees.  J Arthroplasty. 1997;  12 91-98
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Braakman M, Verburg A D, Bronsema G, van Leeuwen W M, Eeftinck M P. The outcome of three methods of patellar resurfacing in total knee arthroplasty.  Int Orthop. 1995;  19 7-11
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Keblish P A, Varma A K, Greenwald A S. Patellar resurfacing or retention in total knee arthroplasty. A prospective study of patients with bilateral replacements.  J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1994;  76 930-937
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Ranawat C S. The patellofemoral joint in total condylar knee arthroplasty. Pros and cons based on five- to ten-year follow-up observations.  Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1986;  205 93-99
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Knight J L, Atwater R D, Grothaus L. Clinical results of the modular porous-coated anatomic (PCA) total knee arthroplasty with cement: a 5-year prospective study.  Orthopedics. 1997;  20 1025-1033
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Yong C K, Choon D S, Soon H C. Midterm outcome of the Duracon total knee arthroplasty.  J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2008;  16 197-200
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Lidgren L, Robertsson O. Annual Report 2008. The Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Register. Lund, Sweden: Wallin & Dalholm AB; 2008
    Google Scholar
  • 28 Helse-Bergen HF. Annual Report 2008. The Norwegian Arthroplasty Register. Haukeland University Hospital. Retrieved from http://www.haukeland.no/nrl/ Haukeland, Norway; 2008
    Google Scholar
  • 29 Rantanen P, Keinonen A, Mäkelä A. The 2004 Implant Yearbook of Orthopaedic Endoprostheses. Finnish Arthroplasty Register. Helsinki, Finland: Tikkurilan Paino Oy; 2004
    Google Scholar

John QuinlanF.R.C.S. (Tr. & Orth.) 

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Dunedin Public Hospital

University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand

Email: johnfquinlan@yahoo.com

      >