Advertisement

Piatto mobile versus piatto fisso. Esame comparativo

  • U. De Nicola
  • A. Pannone

Estratto

L’impianto di un’artroprotesi totale di ginocchio, tecnica chirurgica ortopedica sempre in maggiore diffusione in Italia, richiede oggi conoscenze approfondite anche in senso biomeccanico, ingegneristico ed informatico. Non è più sufficiente, infatti, essere un attento ed esperto chirurgo per avere buoni risultati a distanza dall’impianto protesico. La vita media e le richieste funzionali dei nostri pazienti sono in costante aumento.Gli esiti di gravi traumi della strada, sportivi o di atti chirurgici precedenti costringono, talvolta, ad anticipare i tempi di una protesizzazione articolare in età nelle quali ben difficilmente, nel recente passato, si sarebbe scelta tale radicalità chirurgica.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Bibliografia

  1. 1.
    Dennis DA, Komistek RD, Colwell CE Jr et al (1998) In vivo anteroposterior femorotibial translation of total knee arthroplasty: a multicenter analysis. Clin Orthop (356):47–57PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Callaghan JJ, Squire MW, Goetz DD et al (2000) Cemented rotating-platform total knee replacement. A nine to twelve-year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 82:705–711PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Confalonieri N, Manzotti A, Motavalli K (2004) Studio prospettico randomizzato tra due gruppi di protesi monocompartimentali di ginocchio: a piatto fisso e con menisco mobile (scheda a punti GIUM). Giorn Ital Ortop Traumatol 30:49–55Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gunston FH (1971) Polycentric knee arthroplasty. Prosthetic simulation of normal knee movement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 53:272–277PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Freeman MA, Insall JN, Besser W et al (1977) Excision of the cruciate ligaments in total knee replacement. Clin Orthop (126):209–212PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Buechel FF (2000) Le protesi a menischi mobili. In: Sculco TP, Martucci EA (eds) L’artroprotesi di ginocchio. Timeo, Bologna, pp 141–149Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hamelynck KJ, Stiehl JB (2002) LCS mobile bearing arthroplasty. 25 years worldwide review. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lewandowski PJ, Askew MJ, Lin DF et al (1997) Kinematics of posterior cruciate ligament-retaining and-sacrificing mobile bearing total knee arthroplasties. An in vitro comparison of the New Jersey LCS meniscal bearing and rotating platform prostheses. J Arthroplasty 12:777–784PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Aigner C, Windhager R, Pechmann M et al (2004) The influence of an anteriorposterior gliding mobile bearing on range of motion after total knee arthroplasty. A prospective, randomized, double-blinded study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 86:2257–2262PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Morberg P, Chapman-Steath P, Morris P et al (2002) The function of the posterior cruciate ligament in an anteroposterior-gliding rotation platform total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 17:484–489PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Stukenborg-Colsman C, Ostermeier S, Hurschler C, Wirth CJ (2002) Tibiofemoral contact stress after total knee arthroplasty: comparison of fixed and mobile-bearing inlay designs. Acta Orthop Scand 73:638–646PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Conditt MA, Ismaily S, Noble PC (2001) Modular tibial insert micromotion during the gait cycle: effects of cold flow and implantation time. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 68th Annual Meeting, February 28–March 4, San Francisco (Abstract)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hartford JM, Banit D, Hall K, Kaufer H (2001) Radiographic analysis of low contact stress meniscal bearing total knee replacements. J Bone Joint Surg Am 83:229–234PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Engh GA, Koralewicz LM, Pereles TR (2000) Clinical results of modular polyethylene insert exchange with retention of total knee arthroplasty components. J Bone Joint Surg Am 82:516–523PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Engh GA (2001) An analysis of locking mechanism. From the Symposium Tibial Modularity: the Cause of Premature Failure of TKR. The Knee Society Specialty Day. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons 68th Annual Meeting. February 28–March 4, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Stiehl JB, Dennis DA, Komistek RD, Keblish PA (1997) In vivo kinematic analysis of a mobile bearing total knee prosthesis. Clin Orthop (345):60–66PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kim YH, Kim JS (2004) Comparison of anterior-posterior-glide and rotating-platform low contact stress mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasties. J Bone Joint Surg Am 86:1239–1247PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Stiehl JB, Voorhorst PE (1999) Total knee arthroplasty with a mobile-bearing prosthesis: comparison of retention and sacrifice of the posterior cruciate ligament in cementless implants. Am J Orthop 28:223–228PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wasielewski RC (2001) Back-side wear-the Achilles heel of TKA. Symposium Tibial Modularity: The Cause of Premature Failure of TKR. The Knee Society Specialty Day. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 68th Annual Meeting, February 28–March 4, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Huang CH, Ma HM, Liau JJ et al (2002) Late dislocation of rotating platform in New Jersey low-contact stress knee prosthesis. Clin Orthop (405):189–194PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Trousdale RT, Babis GA, Dechet P, Morrey BF (2001) Isolated tibial insert exchange in revision total knee arthroplasty. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 68th Annual Meeting, February 28–March 4, San Francisco (Abstract)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Italia, Milano 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • U. De Nicola
    • 1
  • A. Pannone
    • 2
  1. 1.Ospedale Ca’ FoncelloUO di Ortopedia e TraumatologiaTreviso
  2. 2.Casa di Cura Città di UdineUdine

Personalised recommendations