Advertisement

International Orthopaedics

, Volume 38, Issue 12, pp 2489–2493 | Cite as

Gender-specific outcome after implantation of low-contact-stress mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty with a minimum follow-up of ten years

  • Norbert Kastner
  • Birgit A. Aigner
  • Tobias Meikl
  • Jörg Friesenbichler
  • Matthias Wolf
  • Mathias Glehr
  • Gerald Gruber
  • Andreas Leithner
  • Patrick SadoghiEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

Purpose

The study aim was an analysis of gender-specific outcome differences after implantation of the low-contact-stress (LCS) mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty (TKA) with a minimum follow-up of ten years.

Methods

We retrospectively analysed 138 prostheses in 108 patients (82 women and 26 men) using our hospital database and a minimum follow-up of ten years (mean 14, range 11–23). Data was extracted with respect to quality of life, clinical outcome parameters [range of motion (ROM), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score, visual analogue scale (VAS), Knee Society Score (KSS), and complications.

Results

At follow-up, we observed no statistically significant differences in all outcome parameters between female and male patients after LCS TKA, except for VAS score, which revealed no clinical relevance due to the low difference (1.53 vs 1.03, p = 0.043).

Conclusions

Ten years after implantation of the LCS TKA, gender did not influence its beneficial outcome.

Keywords

Total knee arthroplasty Gender differences Outcome analysis 

References

  1. 1.
    Daniilidis K, Tibesku CO (2013) Frontal plane alignment after total knee arthroplasty using patient-specific instruments. Int Orthop 37(1):45–50PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sadoghi P, Kastner N (2013) Size measurement and flexion gap balancing in total knee arthroplasty–new benefits of the Attune™ system? Int Orthop 37(10):2105PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kastner N, Gruber G, Sadoghi P (2012) Can we always trust in the computer? Adequate tibial alignment and flexion-gap balancing using personalised knee arthroplasty cutting blocks. Int Orthop 36(11):2395PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    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 34:1159–1165PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Andersen RE, Crespo CJ, Ling SM, Bathon JM, Bartlett SJ (1999) Prevalence of significant knee pain among older Americans: results from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. J Am Geriatr Soc 47:1435–1438PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    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 110:361–368PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    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 33:2271–2279PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Peat G, Thomas E, Duncan R, Wood L, Wilkie R, Hill J, Hay EM, Croft P (2007) Estimating the probability of radiographicosteoarthritis in the older patient with knee pain. Arthritis Rheum 57:794–802PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Duncan RC, Hay EM, Saklatvala J, Croft PR (2006) Prevalence of radiographic knee osteoarthritis – it all depends on your point of view. Rheumatology 45:757–760PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    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 73:442–455PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    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 popula- tion. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 9:82PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kastner N, Gruber G, Aigner BA, Friesenbichler J, Pechmann M, Fürst F, Vavken P, Leithner A, Sadoghi P (2012) Sex-related outcome differences after implantation of low-contact-stress mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty. Int Orthop 36(7):1393–1397PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    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
  14. 14.
    Callaghan JJ, Squire MW, Goetz DD, Sullivan PM, Johnston RC (2000) Cemented rotating-platform total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 82–1:705–711Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Stiehl JB (2002) World experience with low contact stress mobile bearing total knee arthroplasty: a literature review. Orthop 25:s213–s217Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    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 12:142PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kastner N, Sternbauer S, Friesenbichler J, Vielgut I, Wolf M, Glehr M, Leithner A, Sadoghi P (2014) Impact of the tibial slope on range of motion after low-contact-stress, mobile-bearing, total knee arthroplasty. Int Orthop 38(2):291–295PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
  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. Am Stat 55(1):19–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Merchant AC, Arendt EA, Dye SF, Fredericson M, Grelsamer RP, Leadbetter WB, Post WR, Teitge RA (2008) The female knee: anatomic variations and the female-specific total knee design. Clin Orthop Relat Res 466(12):3059–3065PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Conley S, Rosenberg A, Crowninshield R (2007) The female knee: anatomic variations. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 15:31–36Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    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(4):213–217PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    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-A(4):115–122PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Booth RE Jr (2006) Sex and the total knee: gender-sensitive designs. Orthopedics 29:836–838PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    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
  27. 27.
    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
  28. 28.
    Vielgut I, Kastner N, Pichler K, Holzer L, Glehr M, Gruber G, Leithner A, Labek G, Sadoghi P (2013) Application and surgical technique of total knee arthroplasties: a systematic comparative analysis using worldwide registers. Int Orthop 37(8):1465–1469. doi: 10.1007/s00264-013-1933-2 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© SICOT aisbl 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Norbert Kastner
    • 1
  • Birgit A. Aigner
    • 2
  • Tobias Meikl
    • 1
  • Jörg Friesenbichler
    • 1
  • Matthias Wolf
    • 1
  • Mathias Glehr
    • 1
  • Gerald Gruber
    • 1
  • 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

Personalised recommendations