HSS Journal ®

, Volume 8, Issue 2, pp 96–102

Clinical Results and Failure Mechanisms of a Nonmodular Constrained Knee Without Stem Extensions

  • Denis Nam
  • Ben-Paul N. Umunna
  • Michael B. Cross
  • Keith R. Reinhardt
  • Shivi Duggal
  • Charles N. Cornell
Original Article



In the setting of persistent knee instability despite appropriate ligament balancing for primary total knee arthroplasty, most surgeons advocate the use of an implant with increased articular constraint. These implants are commonly supplemented with stem extensions to improve stress transfer and decrease the risk of aseptic loosening. However, disadvantages exist with the use of stem extensions, including increased cost, intramedullary invasion, and diaphyseal pain. The objectives of this study were to (1) compare the clinical results as assessed by the Knee Society, Hospital for Special Surgery, and SF-12 scores, (2) determine the incidence of failure as defined by the need for a revision procedure, and (3) to analyze the causes or modes of failure of a nonmodular constrained condylar knee without the use of stem extensions versus a conventional, posterior-stabilized design.

Materials and Methods

From 2002 to 2007, 190 TKAs were implanted using a primary, nonmodular constrained (NMC) prosthesis without stem extensions. During the same time period, clinical data were available for 140 TKAs implanted using a standard, posterior-stabilized (PS) design. Preoperative demographic data was reviewed, in addition to the rate and reason for revision in each cohort. Clinical data included HSS, Knee Society, and SF-12 scores at the latest follow-up, and the results of the NMC and PS cohorts were statistically compared using a Student’s two-tailed t test.


The mean age of patients in the NMC cohort was 72.3 ± 10.2 years, and the mean length of follow-up was 7.3 ± 2.1 years. The mean age of the PS cohort was 67.1 ± 8.7 years, with a mean follow-up of 6.1 ± 2.2 years. No statistically significant differences in the HSS, Knee Society, or SF-12 scores were appreciated between the two cohorts. The revision rate in the NMC cohort was 4.2 % compared to 4.3 % for the PS cohort. The most common cause of failure in the NMC cohort was femoral component loosening, all of which occurred when Palacos cement was used for fixation. NMC components (55.6 %) implanted with Palacos cement failed due to femoral component loosening. In contrast, all PS components requiring revision were revised for persistent instability.


At mid-term follow-up, NMC prostheses without stem extensions have excellent clinical results and are a viable option for patients with ligamentous instability. The use of Palacos cement in this scenario was associated with a high rate of femoral component loosening, possibly due to the decreased intrusion depth of Palacos when compared to Simplex cement.


nonmodular constrained total condylar knee component loosening Palacos cement 


  1. 1.
    Anderson JA, Baldini A, MacDonald JH, Pellicci PM, Sculco TP. Primary constrained condylar knee arthroplasty without stem extensions for the valgus knee. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;442:199–203.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anderson JA, Baldini A, MacDonald JH, Tomek I, Pellicci PM, Sculco TP. Constrained condylar knee without stem extensions for difficult primary total knee arthroplasty. J Knee Surg. 2007;3:195–198.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barrack RL, Rorabeck C, Burt M, Sawhney J. Pain at the end of the stem after revision total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1999;367:216–225.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Barrack RL, Stanley T, Burt M, Hopkins S. The effect of stem design on end-of-stem pain in revision total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2004;7 Suppl 2:119–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Easley ME, Insall JN, Scuderi GR, Bullek DD. Primary constrained condylar knee arthroplasty for the arthritic valgus knee. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2000;380:58–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fehring TK, Odum S, Griffin WL, Mason JB, Nadaud M. Early failures in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001;392:315–318.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Haas SB, Insall JN, Montgomery W,3rd, Windsor RE. Revision total knee arthroplasty with use of modular components with stems inserted without cement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1995;11:1700–1707.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD, Scott WN. Rationale of the knee society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989;248:13–14.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jasty M, Davies JP, O’Connor DO, Burke DW, Harrigan TP, Harris WH. Porosity of various preparations of acrylic bone cements. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1990;259:122–129.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lachiewicz PF, Falatyn SP. Clinical and radiographic results of the total condylar III and constrained condylar total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 1996;8:916–922.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Macdessi SJ, Rich DS, Buly RL. Early femoral component loosening of constrained condylar primary total knee arthroplasties inserted without stems. Journal of Orthopaedics. 2008:20.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Merchant AC, Mercer RL, Jacobsen RH, Cool CR. Roentgenographic analysis of patellofemoral congruence. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1974;7:1391–1396.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nazarian DG, Mehta S, Booth RE,Jr. A comparison of stemmed and unstemmed components in revision knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2002;404:256–262.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pagnano MW, Hanssen AD, Lewallen DG, Stuart MJ. Flexion instability after primary posterior cruciate retaining total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1998;356:39–46.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rey RM,Jr, Paiement GD, McGann WM, Jasty M, Harrigan TP, Burke DW, Harris WH. A study of intrusion characteristics of low viscosity cement simplex-P and palacos cements in a bovine cancellous bone model. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1987;215:272–278.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schwab JH, Haidukewych GJ, Hanssen AD, Jacofsky DJ, Pagnano MW. Flexion instability without dislocation after posterior stabilized total knees. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005;440:96–100.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sculco TP. The role of constraint in total knee arthoplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2006;4 Suppl 1:54–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Seon JK, Park SJ, Yoon TR, Lee KB, Moon ES, Song EK. The effect of anteroposterior laxity on the range of movement and knee function following a cruciate-retaining total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2010;8:1090–1095.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Whiteside LA. Correction of ligament and bone defects in total arthroplasty of the severely valgus knee. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1993;288:234–245.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Windsor RE, Insall JN, Wickiewicz TL, Warren RF. The hospital for special surgery knee ligament rating form. Am J Knee Surg. 1988:140–145.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Hospital for Special Surgery 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Denis Nam
    • 1
    • 2
  • Ben-Paul N. Umunna
    • 1
  • Michael B. Cross
    • 1
    • 2
  • Keith R. Reinhardt
    • 1
    • 2
  • Shivi Duggal
    • 1
  • Charles N. Cornell
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Hospital for Special SurgeryNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Weill Cornell Medical CollegeNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations