Advertisement

International Orthopaedics

, Volume 36, Issue 7, pp 1393–1397 | Cite as

Sex-related outcome differences after implantation of low-contact-stress mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty

  • Norbert Kastner
  • Gerald Gruber
  • Birgit A. Aigner
  • Jörg Friesenbichler
  • Michael Pechmann
  • Florentine Fürst
  • Patrick Vavken
  • Andreas Leithner
  • Patrick SadoghiEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of the study was to investigate outcome differences between female and male patients after implantation of low-contact-stress (LCS) mobile-bearing total knee prostheses at a minimum follow-up of five years with respect to clinical and radiological parameters.

Methods

We retrospectively analysed 128 prostheses in 126 patients (90 women and 34 men) using our hospital database. Data was extracted with respect to range of motion (ROM), the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score, the Knee Society Score (KSS) and radiolucent lines on conventional X-rays.

Results

At follow-up, we observed no significant differences between female and male patients after LCS total knee prostheses. Benefit after implantation of LCS total knee prostheses after five years of minimum follow-up was not significantly different between female and male patients in terms of clinical outcome or radiolucent lines.

Conclusions

We found no factors in favour of gender-specific total knee prostheses.

Keywords

Total Knee Arthroplasty Pantoprazole Knee Society Score Radiolucent Line WOMAC Score 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Competing interests

There exist no financial or non-financial competing interests in case of any author of this manuscript. No benefits or funds were received in support for the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Buechel FF, Pappas MJ, D’Alessio J (2001) Twenty-year evaluation of meniscal bearing and rotating platform knee replacements. Clin Orthop Relat Res 388:41–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Callaghan JJ, Squire MW, Goetz DD, Sullivan PM, Johnston RC (2000) Cemented rotating-platform total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 82–1:705–11Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Stiehl JB (2002) World experience with low contact stress mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty: a literature review. Orthopaedics 25:s213–17Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Parsch D, Krüger M, Moser MT, Geiger F (2009) Follow-up of 11–16 years after modular fixed-bearing TKA. IntOrthop 33:431–435Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sadoghi P, Leithner A, Weber P, Friesenbichler J, Gruber G, Kastner N, Pohlmann K, Jansson V, Wegener B (2011) Radiolucent lines in low-contact-stress mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty: a blinded and matched case control study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 12:142PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Buechel FF (2001) My platform moveth and that´s all that´s needed! Orthopaedics 24:890–2Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    World Health Organisation: The burden of musculoskeletal conditions at the start of the new millenium. Report of a WHO Scientific Group. WHO Technical Report Series No. 919 2003 [http://whqlibdoc.who.int/trs/WHO_TRS_919.pdf]. Geneva: WHO (accessed 4th December 2007)
  8. 8.
    Andersen RE, Crespo CJ, Ling SM, Bathon JM, Bartlett SJ (1999) Preva- lence of significant knee pain among older Americans: results from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. J Am Geriatr Soc 47:1435–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Thomas E, Peat G, Harris L, Wilkie R, Croft PR (2004) The prevalence of pain and pain interference in a general population of older adults: cross-sectional findings from the North Staffordshire Osteoarthritis Project (NorStOP). Pain 110:361–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dillon CF, Rasch EK, Gu Q, Hirsch R (2006) Prevalence of knee osteoarthritis in the United States: arthritis data from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 1991–94. J Rheumatol 33:2271–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Peat G, Thomas E, Duncan R, Wood L, Wilkie R, Hill J, Hay EM, Croft P (2007) Estimating the probability of radiographic osteoarthritis in the older patient with knee pain. Arthritis Rheum 57:794–802PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Duncan RC, Hay EM, Saklatvala J, Croft PR (2006) Prevalence of radiographic knee osteoarthritis – it all depends on your point of view. Rheumatology 45:757–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Vignon E, Valat J-P, Rossignol M, Avouac B, Rozenberg S, Thoumie P, Avouac J, Nordin M, Hilliquin P (2006) Osteoarthritis of the knee and hip and activity: a systematic international review and synthesis (OASIS). Joint Bone Spine 73:442–55PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lacey RJ, Thomas E, Duncan RC, Peat G (2008) Gender difference in symptomatic radiographic knee osteoarthritis in the Knee Clinical Assessment – CAS(K): A prospective study in the general population. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 9:82PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Munzinger UK, Maffiuletti NA, Guggi T, Bizzini M, Preiss S, Drobny T (2010) Five-year results of the Innex total knee arthroplasty system. Int Orthop 34:1159–1165Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Levels of evidence according to the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery – American volume. http://www.jbjs.org/public/instructionsauthors.aspx
  17. 17.
  18. 18.
    Ewald FC (1989) The Knee Society total knee arthroplasty roentgenographic evaluation and scoring system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 248:9–12PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Goslings JC, Gouma DJ (2008) What is a surgical complication? World J Surg 32:952PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hoening JM, Heisey DM (2001) The abuse of power: The pervasive fallacy of power calculations for data analysis. The American Statistician 55(1):19–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Chin KR, Dalury DF, Zurakowski D, Scott RD (2002) Intraoperative measurements of male and female distal femurs during primary total knee arthroplasty. J Knee Surg 15:213–217PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hitt K, Shurman JR 2nd, Greene K, McCarthy J, Moskal J, Hoeman T, Mont MA (2003) Anthropometric measurements of the human knee: correlation to the sizing of current knee arthroplasty systems. J Bone Joint Surg Am 85:115–122PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Booth RE Jr (2006) Sex and the total knee: gender-sensitive designs. Orthopedics 29:836–838PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Robertsson O, Dunbar M, Pehrsson T, Knutson K, Lidgren L (2000) Patient satisfaction after knee arthroplasty: a report on 27,372 knees operated on between 1981 and 1995 in Sweden. Acta Orthop Scand 71:262–267PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Harrysson OLA, Robertsson O, Nayfeh JF (2004) Higher cumulative revision rate of knee arthroplasties in younger patients with osteoarthritis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 421:162–168PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Norbert Kastner
    • 1
  • Gerald Gruber
    • 1
  • Birgit A. Aigner
    • 2
  • Jörg Friesenbichler
    • 1
  • Michael Pechmann
    • 1
  • Florentine Fürst
    • 3
  • Patrick Vavken
    • 4
    • 5
  • Andreas Leithner
    • 1
  • Patrick Sadoghi
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryMedical University of GrazGrazAustria
  2. 2.Department of General DermatologyMedical University of GrazGrazAustria
  3. 3.Division of Rheumatology and ImmunologyMedical University of GrazGrazAustria
  4. 4.Sports Medicine Research Laboratory, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Children’s Hospital BostonHarvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA
  5. 5.Harvard Center for Population and Development StudiesHarvard School of Public HealthBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations