Download PDF
J Knee Surg 2022; 35(07): 718-724
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1716850
Original Article

The Outcome of Posterior-Stabilized, Rotating Platform Total Knee Arthroplasty at a Minimum Ten-Year Follow-Up, a Middle East Institution Experience

Ahmed A. Khalifa 
1   Department of Orthopaedics, Assiut University Hospital, Assiut, Egypt
2   Department of Orthopaedics, Qena Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital, South Valley University, Qena, Egypt
,
Mostafa Fayez
3   Department of Orthopaedics, Student's Hospital, Assiut University, Assiut, Egypt
,
Hesham Elkady
1   Department of Orthopaedics, Assiut University Hospital, Assiut, Egypt
,
Ahmed M. Abdelaal
1   Department of Orthopaedics, Assiut University Hospital, Assiut, Egypt
,
Maher A. Elassal
1   Department of Orthopaedics, Assiut University Hospital, Assiut, Egypt
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Posterior-stabilized, rotating platform knee prosthesis design was aimed to decrease polyethylene wear for the sake of improving implant survivorship. The purpose of the present prospective study was to evaluate the long-term clinical and radiographic results as well as the survival rate after using a rotating platform, posterior-stabilized knee prosthesis at a minimum of 10 years at a Middle East institution. We compared the results with reports in the literature on western populations. From January 2002 to June 2008, 96 patients (106 knees) underwent total knee arthroplasty (TKA) using a cemented rotating platform posterior-stabilized knee prosthesis. At a mean of 11.5 ± 1.3 years, 85 patients (95 TKAs) were available for clinical, radiographic, and implant survival analysis. At the final follow-up, 78.9% of the patients had excellent Knee Society Scoring system score, the average knee flexion was 110 ± 17 degrees, the average anatomical knee coronal alignment was 186 ± 2 degrees and 187 ± 3 degrees for varus and valgus knees, respectively. Five (5.2%) knees were revised of these: two for bearing dislocation, two for aseptic loosening, and one for infection. The Kaplan-Meier survival rate was 94.7% for all revisions and 97.8% when only revision for aseptic loosening considered as the end point. At a long-term follow-up, reasonable clinical and radiographic outcomes had been achieved after using a rotating platform, posterior-stabilized knee prosthesis in our population with acceptable survival rate reaching up to 95%, which is comparable to reports from the western population.

Keywords

rotating platform knee - posterior-stabilized - long-term outcome - survivorship - Middle East

Ethical Approval

This article does not contain any experimental studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.




Publication History

Received: 03 April 2020

Accepted: 09 August 2020

Article published online:
30 October 2020

© 2020. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Vessely MB, Whaley AL, Harmsen WS, Schleck CD, Berry DJ. The Chitranjan Ranawat Award: long-term survivorship and failure modes of 1000 cemented condylar total knee arthroplasties. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2006; 452 (452) 28-34
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 O'Rourke MR, Callaghan JJ, Goetz DD, Sullivan PM, Johnston RC. Osteolysis associated with a cemented modular posterior-cruciate-substituting total knee design: five to eight-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2002; 84 (08) 1362-1371
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Rasquinha VJ, Ranawat CS, Cervieri CL, Rodriguez JA. The press-fit condylar modular total knee system with a posterior cruciate-substituting design. A concise follow-up of a previous report. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2006; 88 (05) 1006-1010
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Font-Rodriguez DE, Scuderi GR, Insall JN. Survivorship of cemented total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1997; (345) 79-86
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Argenson JN, O'Connor JJ. Polyethylene wear in meniscal knee replacement. A one to nine-year retrieval analysis of the Oxford knee. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1992; 74 (02) 228-232
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Goodfellow J, O'Connor J. The mechanics of the knee and prosthesis design. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1978; 60-B (03) 358-369
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Goodfellow JW, O'Connor J. Clinical results of the Oxford knee. Surface arthroplasty of the tibiofemoral joint with a meniscal bearing prosthesis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1986; (205) 21-42
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Buechel FF, Pappas MJ. Long-term survivorship analysis of cruciate-sparing versus cruciate-sacrificing knee prostheses using meniscal bearings. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1990; (260) 162-169
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Ulivi M, Orlandini L, Meroni V, Consonni O, Sansone V. Survivorship at minimum 10-year follow-up of a rotating-platform, mobile-bearing, posterior-stabilised total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2015; 23 (06) 1669-1675
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Dennis DA, Komistek RD, Hoff WA, Gabriel SM. In vivo knee kinematics derived using an inverse perspective technique. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1996; (331) 107-117
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Haas BD, Komistek RD, Stiehl JB, Anderson DT, Northcut EJ. Kinematic comparison of posterior cruciate sacrifice versus substitution in a mobile bearing total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2002; 17 (06) 685-692
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 McEwen HM, Fisher J, Goldsmith AA, Auger DD, Hardaker C, Stone MH. Wear of fixed bearing and rotating platform mobile bearing knees subjected to high levels of internal and external tibial rotation. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2001; 12 (10-12): 1049-1052
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Bert JM. Dislocation/subluxation of meniscal bearing elements after New Jersey low-contact stress total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1990; (254) 211-215
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Callaghan JJ, Insall JN, Greenwald AS. et al. Mobile-bearing knee replacement: concepts and results. Instr Course Lect 2001; 50: 431-449
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Buechel Sr FF, Buechel Jr FF, Pappas MJ, D'Alessio J. Twenty-year evaluation of meniscal bearing and rotating platform knee replacements. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2001; (388) 41-50
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Callaghan JJ, Squire MW, Goetz DD, Sullivan PM, Johnston RC. Cemented rotating-platform total knee replacement. A nine to twelve-year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2000; 82 (05) 705-711
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Callaghan JJ, Wells CW, Liu SS, Goetz DD, Johnston RC. Cemented rotating-platform total knee replacement: a concise follow-up, at a minimum of twenty years, of a previous report. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2010; 92 (07) 1635-1639
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Meftah M, Ranawat AS, Ranawat CS. Ten-year follow-up of a rotating-platform, posterior-stabilized total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2012; 94 (05) 426-432
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Argenson JN, Parratte S, Ashour A, Saintmard B, Aubaniac JM. The outcome of rotating-platform total knee arthroplasty with cement at a minimum of ten years of follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2012; 94 (07) 638-644
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Buechel Sr FF. Long-term followup after mobile-bearing total knee replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2002; (404) 40-50
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Hopley CD, Crossett LS, Chen AF. Long-term clinical outcomes and survivorship after total knee arthroplasty using a rotating platform knee prosthesis: a meta-analysis. J Arthroplasty 2013; 28 (01) 68-77.e1 , 3
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Huang C-H, Ma H-M, Lee Y-M, Ho F-Y. Long-term results of low contact stress mobile-bearing total knee replacements. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2003; (416) 265-270
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Callaghan JJ, O'Rourke MR, Iossi MF. et al. Cemented rotating-platform total knee replacement. a concise follow-up, at a minimum of fifteen years, of a previous report. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005; 87 (09) 1995-1998
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Milligan DJ, O'Brien S, Doran E, Gallagher NE, Beverland DE. Twenty-year survivorship of a cemented mobile bearing total knee arthroplasty. Knee 2019; 26 (04) 933-940
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD, Scott WN. Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1989; 248 (248) 13-14
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Ewald FC. The Knee Society total knee arthroplasty roentgenographic evaluation and scoring system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1989; (248) 9-12
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Rossi R, Ferro A, Bruzzone M, Bonasia DE, Garzaro G, Castoldi F. NexGen LPS rotating platform total knee arthroplasty: medium-term results of a prospective study. Chir Organi Mov 2009; 93 (02) 65-70
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Hanusch B, Lou TN, Warriner G, Hui A, Gregg P. Functional outcome of PFC Sigma fixed and rotating-platform total knee arthroplasty. A prospective randomised controlled trial. Int Orthop 2010; 34 (03) 349-354
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Breugem SJ, Sierevelt IN, Schafroth MU, Blankevoort L, Schaap GR, van Dijk CN. Less anterior knee pain with a mobile-bearing prosthesis compared with a fixed-bearing prosthesis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2008; 466 (08) 1959-1965
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Blunn GW, Walker PS, Joshi A, Hardinge K. The dominance of cyclic sliding in producing wear in total knee replacements. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1991; (273) 253-260
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Most E, Li G, Schule S. et al. The kinematics of fixed- and mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2003; (416) 197-207
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Dennis DA, Komistek RD, Mahfouz MR, Haas BD, Stiehl JB. Multicenter determination of in vivo kinematics after total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2003; (416) 37-57
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Ranawat CS, Komistek RD, Rodriguez JA, Dennis DA, Anderle M. In vivo kinematics for fixed and mobile-bearing posterior stabilized knee prostheses. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2004; (418) 184-190
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Delport HP, Banks SA, De Schepper J, Bellemans J. A kinematic comparison of fixed- and mobile-bearing knee replacements. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2006; 88 (08) 1016-1021
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Hafez MA, Sheikhedrees SM, Saweeres ES. Anthropometry of Arabian arthritic knees: comparison to other ethnic groups and implant dimensions. J Arthroplasty 2016; 31 (05) 1109-1116
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Li K, Saffarini M, Valluy J. et al. Sexual and ethnic polymorphism render prosthetic overhang and under-coverage inevitable using off-the shelf TKA implants. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2019; 27 (07) 2130-2139
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Kim TK, Phillips M, Bhandari M, Watson J, Malhotra R. What differences in morphologic features of the knee exist among patients of various races? A systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2017; 475 (01) 170-182
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Ho WP, Cheng CK, Liau JJ. Morphometrical measurements of resected surface of femurs in Chinese knees: correlation to the sizing of current femoral implants. Knee 2006; 13 (01) 12-14
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Cho HJ, Chang CB, Kim TK. Comparison of clinical outcomes between floating platform and rotating-platform posterior stabilized mobile-bearing in total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2010; 92 (Suppl B): 158-159
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Ranawat AS, Gupta SK, Ranawat CS. The P.F.C. sigma RP-F total knee arthroplasty: designed for improved performance. Orthopedics 2006; 29 (Suppl. 09) S28-S29
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Jones RE. High-flexion rotating-platform knees: rationale, design, and patient selection. Orthopedics 2006; 29 (Suppl. 09) S76-S79
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Carothers JT, Kim RH, Dennis DA, Southworth C. Mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis. J Arthroplasty 2011; 26 (04) 537-542
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Ranawat AS, Ranawat CS, Slamin JE, Dennis DA. Patellar crepitation in the P.F.C. sigma total knee system. Orthopedics 2006; 29 (Suppl. 09) S68-S70
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Anderson MJ, Becker DL, Kieckbusch T. Patellofemoral complications after posterior-stabilized total knee arthroplasty: a comparison of 2 different implant designs. J Arthroplasty 2002; 17 (04) 422-426
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Maloney WJ, Schmidt R, Sculco TP. Femoral component design and patellar clunk syndrome. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2003; (410) 199-202
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Maniar RN, Gupta H, Singh A, Johorey AC, Singhi T. Five- to eight-year results of a prospective study in 118 arthroplasties using posterior-stabilized rotating-platform knee implants. J Arthroplasty 2011; 26 (04) 543-548
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Thompson NW, Wilson DS, Cran GW, Beverland DE, Stiehl JB. Dislocation of the rotating platform after low contact stress total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2004; (425) 207-211
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Gioe TJ, Glynn J, Sembrano J, Suthers K, Santos ER, Singh J. Mobile and fixed-bearing (all-polyethylene tibial component) total knee arthroplasty designs. A prospective randomized trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2009; 91 (09) 2104-2112
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar