Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Warum individuelle Endoprothetik am Kniegelenk?

Why individualized endoprosthetics for the knee?

  • Leitthema
  • Published:
Der Orthopäde Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Abb. 1

Literatur

  1. Beckmann J, Steinert A, Zilkens C, Zeh A, Schnurr C, Schmitt-Sody M, Gebauer M (2016) Patientenspezifische Instrumente und Implantate beim Teilgelenkersatz des Kniegelenkes (ConforMIS iUni, iDuo). Orthopäde 45:322–330

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Bellemans J, Banks S, Victor J, Vandenneucker H, Moemans A (2002) Fluoroscopic analysis of the kinematics of deep flexion in total knee arthroplasty. Influence of posterior condylar offset. J Bone Joint Surg Br 84:50–53

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Bonnin MP, Saffarini M, Shepherd D, Bossard N, Dantony E (2016) Oversizing the tibial component in TKAs: incidence, consequences and risk factors. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 24:2532–2540

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bonnin MP, Schmidt A, Basiglini L, Bossard N, Dantony E (2013) Mediolateral oversizing influences pain, function, and flexion after TKA. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 21:2314–2324

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bourne RB, Chesworth BM, Davis AM, Mahomed NN, Charron KDJ (2010) Patient satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty: who is satisfied and who is not? Clin Orthop 468:57–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Callahan CM, Drake BG, Heck DA, Dittus RS (1994) Patient outcomes following tricompartmental total knee replacement. A meta-analysis. JAMA 271:1349–1357

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Chau R, Gulati A, Pandit H, Beard DJ, Price AJ, Dodd CA, Gill HS, Murray DW (2009) Tibial component overhang following unicompartmental knee replacement—does it matter? Knee 16:310–313

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Culler SD, Martin GM, Swearingen A (2017) Comparison of adverse events rates and hospital cost between customized individually made implants and standard off-the-shelf implants for total knee arthroplasty. Arthroplast Today 3:257–263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Gill GS, Joshi AB, Mills DM (1999) Total condylar knee arthroplasty. 16- to 21-year results. Clin Orthop 367:210–215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Hirschmann MT, Behrend H (2018) Functional knee phenotypes: a call for a more personalised and individualised approach to total knee arthroplasty? Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 26(10):2873–2874. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-018-4973-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hitt K, Shurman JR, 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):115–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Howell SM, Howell SJ, Kuznik KT, Cohen J, Hull ML (2013) Does a kinematically aligned total knee arthroplasty restore function without failure regardless of alignment category? Clin Orthop 471:1000–1007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Katthagen B‑D, Chatziandreou I (2015) Comparison of hospital metrics and patient reported outcomes for patients with customized, individually made vs. conventional TKA

    Google Scholar 

  14. Li K, Saffarini M, Valluy J, Desseroit M‑C, Morvan Y, Telmon N, Cavaignac E (2019) Sexual and ethnic polymorphism render prosthetic overhang and under-coverage inevitable using off-the shelf TKA implants. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 27:2130–2139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Lützner J, Hübel U, Kirschner S, Günther K‑P, Krummenauer F (2011) Long-term results in total knee arthroplasty. A meta-analysis of revision rates and functional outcome. Chirurg 82:618–624

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Mahoney OM, Kinsey T (2010) Overhang of the femoral component in total knee arthroplasty: risk factors and clinical consequences. J Bone Joint Surg Am 92:1115–1121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Martin S, Saurez A, Ismaily S, Ashfaq K, Noble P, Incavo SJ (2014) Maximizing tibial coverage is detrimental to proper rotational alignment. Clin Orthop 472:121–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Meier M, Webb J, Collins JE, Beckmann J, Fitz W (2018) Do modern total knee replacements improve tibial coverage? Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 26(11):3219–3229. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-018-4836-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Meier M, Zingde S, Best R, Schroeder L, Beckmann J, Steinert AF (2019) High variability of proximal tibial asymmetry and slope: a CT data analysis of 15,807 osteoarthritic knees before TKA. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-019-05728-4

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Meier M, Zingde S, Steinert A, Kurtz W, Koeck FX, Beckmann J (2019) What is the possible impact of high variability of distal femoral geometry on tKA? A CT data analysis of 24,042 knees. Clin Orthop Relat Res 477(3):561–570. https://doi.org/10.1097/CORR.0000000000000611

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Mensch JS, Amstutz HC (1975) Knee morphology as a guide to knee replacement. Clin Orthop 112:231–241

    Google Scholar 

  22. Mueller JKP, Wentorf FA, Moore RE (2014) Femoral and tibial insert downsizing increases the laxity envelope in TKA. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 22:3003–3011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Noble PC, Conditt MA, Cook KF, Mathis KB (2006) The John Insall award: patient expectations affect satisfaction with total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 452:35–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Parvizi J, Nunley RM, Berend KR, Lombardi AV, Ruh EL, Clohisy JC, Hamilton WG, Della Valle CJ, Barrack RL (2014) High level of residual symptoms in young patients after total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 472:133–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Steinert AF, Beckmann J, Holzapfel BM, Rudert M, Arnholdt J (2017) Bicompartmental individualized knee replacement : use of patient-specific implants and instruments (iduoTM). Oper Orthop Traumatol 29:51–58

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Wuertele N, Beckmann J, Meier M, Huth J, Fitz W (2019) Posterior condylar resections in total knee arthroplasty: current standard instruments do not restore femoral condylar anatomy. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 139:1141–1147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Yan M, Wang J, Wang Y, Zhang J, Yue B, Zeng Y (2014) Gender-based differences in the dimensions of the femoral trochlea and condyles in the Chinese population: correlation to the risk of femoral component overhang. Knee 21:252–256

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department Endoprothetik untere Extremität und Fußchirurgie, Sportklinik Stuttgart, Taubenheimstr. 8, 70372, Stuttgart, Deutschland

    M. Meier, R. Best &  J. Beckmann

  2. Klinikum Dortmund, Dortmund, Deutschland

    C. Lüring

  3. MedArtes, Neutraubling, Deutschland

    F. X. Köck

Authors
  1. M. Meier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. C. Lüring
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. R. Best
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. F. X. Köck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. J. Beckmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. Beckmann.

Ethics declarations

Interessenkonflikt

C. Lüring gibt an Honorare von DePuy Synthes zu erhalten. J. Beckmann gibt an Honorare von Smith&Nephew und von ConforMIS zu erhalten. M. Meier, R. Best und F.X. Köck geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Für diesen Beitrag wurden von den Autoren keine Studien an Menschen oder Tieren durchgeführt. Für die aufgeführten Studien gelten die jeweils dort angegebenen ethischen Richtlinien.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Meier, M., Lüring, C., Best, R. et al. Warum individuelle Endoprothetik am Kniegelenk?. Orthopäde 49, 378–381 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00132-020-03899-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00132-020-03899-4

Search

Navigation