Advertisement

LCS® Multicenter Worldwide Outcome Study

  • J. B. Stiehl
  • Karel J. Hamelynck
  • James B. Stiehl
  • Paul E. Voorhorst
  • T. Y. Kashiwagi
  • J. G. Boldt
  • P. A. Keblish

Abstract

Mobile bearings were originally introduced with the Oxford knee in 1977 which sought to improve articular congruity for improved wear characteristics using a spherical, congruous articulation while diminishing implant constraint with a floating surface p[6]. The Low Contact Stress (LCS) knee prosthesis (Depuy, Warsaw), the subject of this outcome study was a mobile bearing design with modifications of the tibial component to allow for posterior cruciate retention (meniscal bearing) or sacrifice (rotating platform). From the outset, it was recognized that a long term experience would be needed to prove the experiment that mobile bearings would solve the issues of fixation and wear through a favorable, high area of contact, wear surface and nonconstrained moveable bearings [2].

Keywords

Total Knee Arthroplasty Tibial Component Mobile Bearing Patellar Component Cement Fixation 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Buechel FF Sr, Buechel FF Jr, Pappas MJ, D’Alessio J (2001) Twenty-year evaluation of meniscal bearing and rotating platform knee replacements. Clin Orthop Rel Res 388: 41–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Buechel FF, Pappas MJ (1986) New jersey low contact stress knee replacement system: Biomechanical rationale and review of first 123 cemented cases. Arch Orthop Tramua Surg 105: 197–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Buechel FF, Pappas MJ (1989) New Jersey low contact stress knee replacement system: Ten-year evaluation of meniscal bearings. Orthop Clin N Am 20: 147–177Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Buechel FF, Rosa RA, Pappas MJ (1989) A metal-backed, ro- tating-bearing patellar prosthesis to lower contact stress: An 11 -year clinical study. Clin Orthop Rel Res 248: 34–49Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dorey F, Amstutz HC (1986) Survivorship analysis in total joint arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 1: 63–69PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Goodfellow J W, O’Connor J (1986) Clinical results of the Oxford knee: Surface arthroplasty of the tibiofemoral joint with a meniscal bearing prosthesis. Clin Orthop 205: 21–42Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jordan LR, Olivo JL, Voorhorst PF (1997) Survivorship analysis of cementless meniscal bearing total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Rel Res 338: 119–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Keblish PA (1991) The lateral approach to the valgus knee. Surgical technique and analysis of 53 cases with over two- year follow-up examination. Clin Orthop Rel Res 271: 52–62Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Keblish PA,Varma AK,Greenwald AS (1994) Patellar resur-facing or retention in total knee arthroplasty. A prospective study of patients with bilateral replacements. J Bone Joint Surg 76 B: 930–937Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Stiehl JB, Voorhorst PF (1999) Total knee arthroplasty with a mobile-bearing prosthesis: Comparison of retention and sacrifice of the posterior cruciate ligament in cementless implants. Am J Orthopaedics 28: 223–228Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sorrels RB, Voorhorst PE, Grennwald AS (1999) The long- term clinical use of a rotating platform mobile bearing TKA. Proceedings of the 66th Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, Feb 4–8, 1999, Anaheim, C AGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Stiehl JB, Voorhorst PF, Keblish PA, Sorrells RB (1997) Comparison of range of motion after posterior cruciate- retention or sacrifice with a mobile bearing total knee arthroplasty. Am J Knee Surg 10: 216–220PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 1.
    Buechel FF Sr, Buechel FF Jr, Pappas MJ, D’Alessio J (2001) Twenty-year evaluation of meniscal bearing and rotating platform knee replacements. Clin Orthop Rel Res 388: 41–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 2.
    Callaghan JJ, Squire MW, Goetz DD et al. (2000) Cemented rotating platform total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg 82A: 705–711PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 3.
    Collier JP, Mayor MB, McNamara JL et al. (1991) Analysis of the failure of 122 polyethylene inserts from uncemented tib¬ial knee components. Clin Orthop 273: 232–242PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 4.
    Dorey F, Amstutz HC (1986) Survivorship analysis in total joint arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 1: 63–69PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 5.
    Ezzet KA, Garcia R, Barrack RL (1995) Effect of component fixation method on osteolysis in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 321: 86–91PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 6.
    Malkani AL, Rand JA, Bryan RS, Wallrichs SL (1995) Total knee arthroplasty with kinematic condylar prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg 77A: 423–431PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 7.
    Robertsson O, Knutson K, Lewold S, Lidgren L (1999) Knee arthroplasty for osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis 1986–1995. Proceedings Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, Feb 1–4,1999, Anaheim, CAGoogle Scholar
  20. 8.
    StiehlJB, Dennis DA,Komistek RD,Keblish PA (2001) In vivo kinematics of the patellofemoral joint in total knee arthro-plasty. J Arthroplasty 16: 706–714CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 9.
    Whiteside LA (1994) Four screws for fixation of the tibial component in cementless total knee arthroplasty. Clin Or-thop 299: 72–76Google Scholar
  22. 1.
    Aglietti P. Buzzi R (1988) Posterior stabilised total-condylar knee replacement. Three to eight years follow-up of 85 knees. J Hone Joint Surg [Br] 70–B: 211–216Google Scholar
  23. 2.
    Armstrong RA, Whiteside LA (1991) Results of ccmentless total knee arthroplasty in an older rheumatoid arthritis population. J Arthroplasty 6: 357–362Google Scholar
  24. 3.
    Baldwin JU El-Saied MR, Rubinstein RA Jr (1996) Uncemented total knee arthroplasty: report of 109 titanium knees with cancelious-structured porous coating. Orthopedics 19: 123–130Google Scholar
  25. 4.
    Bloebaum RD, Rhodes DM, Rubman MH, Hofmann AA (1991) Bilateral tibial components of different cementless designs and materials. Microradiography backscattered imaging, and histological analysis. Clin Orthop 268: 179–187Google Scholar
  26. 5.
    Bloebaum RD. Rubman MH. Hofmann AA(1992) Bone ingrowth into porous-coated tibial components implanted with autograft bone chips. Analysis of ten consecutively retrieved implants. J Arthroplasty 7: 483–493Google Scholar
  27. 6.
    Bloebaum RD, Bachus KN, Jensen JW, Hofmann A A (1997) Postmortem analysis of consecutively retrieved asymmetric porous-coated tibial components. J Arthroplasty 12: 920–929PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 7.
    Buechel FF (1982) A simplified evaluation system for the rating of the knee function. Orthop Rev 11: 9Google Scholar
  29. 8.
    Cheng CL, Gross AE (1988) Loosening of the porous coat¬ing in total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg JBr) 70–B: 377–381Google Scholar
  30. 9.
    Collins. DN. Heim, SA, Nelson, CL, Smith P III (1991) Porous-coated anatomic total knee arthroplasty. A prospective analysis comparing cemented and cementless fixation. Clin Orthop 267: 128–136Google Scholar
  31. 10.
    Cook SD, Barrack RL, Thomas KA, Haddad RJ Jr (1989) Quantitative histological analysis of tissue growth into porous total knee components. I Ai throplasty 4 (Suppl): S33–43Google Scholar
  32. 11.
    Donaldson WF III.ScuIco TP, Insall JN, Ranawat CS (1988) Total condylar III knee prosthesis. Long-term follow-up study. Clin Orthop 226: 21–28Google Scholar
  33. 12.
    Duffy CP. Berry DJ. Rand JA (1998) Cement versus cementless fixation in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 356: 66–72Google Scholar
  34. 13.
    Ecker ML, Lotke PA, Windsor RE, Cella JP (1987) Long- term results after total condylar knee arthroplasty. Significance of radiolucent lines. Clin Orthop 216: 151–158Google Scholar
  35. 14.
    Engh GA. Bobyn)D. Petersen TL (1988) Radiographic and histologic study of porous coated tibial component fixation in cementless total knee arthroplasty. Orthopedics 11: 725–731Google Scholar
  36. 15.
    Engh CA, Zettl-Schaffer KF, Kukita Y (1993) Histological and radiographic assessment of well functioning porous-coated acetabular components. A human postmortem retrieval study. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 75–A: 814–824Google Scholar
  37. 16.
    Ewald FC (1989) The Knee Society total knee arthroplasty roentgenographs evaluation and scoring system. Clin Orthop 248: 9–12PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 17.
    Farron A, Rakotomanana RL, Zambelli PY, Leyvraz PF (1995) Total knee prosthesis. Clinical and numerical study of micromovements of the tibial implant. Rev Chir Orthop Rep trainee Appar Mot SO: 28–35Google Scholar
  39. 18.
    Fukuoka S, Yovhida K. Yamano Y (2000) Estimation of the migration of tibial components in total knee arthroplasty. A roentgen stereophotogrammetric analysis. J Bone Joint Surg I Br) 82–B: 222–227Google Scholar
  40. 19.
    Jordan I.R, Olivo JL, Voorhorst PE (1997) Survivorship analysis of cementless meniscal bearing total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 33«: 119–123Google Scholar
  41. 20.
    Keblish PA. Schrei C.Ward M (1993) Evaluation of 275 low contact stress (I.CS) total knee replacements with 2– to 8– year follow up. Orthopaedies International Edition ( Jan., Feb., March ) 1: 168–174Google Scholar
  42. 21.
    Kim YH (1990) Knee arthroplasty using a cementless PCA prosthesis with porous-coated central tibial stem. Clinical and radiographic review al five vearx. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 72–B: 412–417Google Scholar
  43. 22.
    Kobs K, Lachiewicv. PF (1993) Hybrid total knee arthroplasty. Two- to five-year results using the Miller-Galante prosthesis. Clin Orthop 286: 78–87Google Scholar
  44. 23.
    Konig A, Kirschner S. Walther M, F-isert M. Eulert J (1998) Hybrid total knee arthroplasty. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 118: 66–69Google Scholar
  45. 24.
    Matsuda S. Tanner MG. White SE. Whiteside LA (1999) Evaluation of tibial component fixation in specimens retrieved al autopsy.Clin Orthop 363: 249–257Google Scholar
  46. 25.
    Matthews LS, Goldstein SA (1992) The prosthesis-bone in terface in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 276: 50–55PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 26.
    Pilliar RM, Bratina WJ (1980) Micromechanical bonding at a porous surfacestructured implant interface-the effect on implant stressing. J Biomed Eng 2: 49–53PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 27.
    Ranawat CS, Insall J. Shine J (1976) Duo-condylar knee arthroplasty: hospital for special surgery design. Clin Orthop 120: 76–82Google Scholar
  49. 28.
    Ranawat CS. Johanson NA. Rimnac CM, Wright TM. Schwartz RE (1986) Retrieval analysis of porous-coated components for total knee arthroplasty. A report of two cases.Clin Orthop 209: 244–248Google Scholar
  50. 29.
    Ranawat CS, Flynn WF Jr, Saddler S, Hansraj KK. Maynard MJ (1993) long term results of the total condylar knee ar throplasty. A 15–year survivorship study. Clin Orthop 286: 94–102Google Scholar
  51. 30.
    Ranawat CS. Flynn WF Jr, Deshmukh RG (1994) Impact of modern technique on long-term results of total condylar knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 309: 131–135Google Scholar
  52. 31.
    Roscnqvist R, Bviander B, Knutson K (1986) Loosening of the porous coating in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 68–A: 538–542Google Scholar
  53. 32.
    Ryd L, Under L (1989) On the correlation between micromotion and histology of the bone-cement interface. Report of three cases of knee arthroplasty followed by roentgen stereophotogrammctric analysis J Arthroplasty 4: 303–309Google Scholar
  54. 33.
    Ryd L, Egund X (1995) Subsidence of tibial components in knee arthroplasty. A comparison between conventional radiography and roentgen stereophotogrammetry. Invest Radiol 30: 396–41X1Google Scholar
  55. 34.
    Ryd L, Lindstrand A, Rosenquist R, Selvik G (1986) Tibial component fixation in knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 213: 141–149PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 35.
    Ryd L. Carlsson L, Herberts P (1993) Micromotion of a noncemented tibial component with screw fixation. An in vivo roentgen stercophotogrammctrtc study of the Miller- Galante prosthesis. Clin Orthop 295: 218–225Google Scholar
  57. 36.
    Shaw LA (1995) Hybrid fixation modular tibial prosthesis. Early clinical and radiographic results and retrieval analysis. J Arthroplasty 10: 438–447Google Scholar
  58. 38.
    Sorrel Is RB (1996) The rotating platform mobile bearing TKA. Orthopedics 19: 793–796Google Scholar
  59. 39.
    Stuchin, SA, Ruoff, M, Matarese W (1991) Cementless total knee arthroplasty in patients with inflammatory arthritis and compromised bone. Clin Orthop 273: 42–51PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 40.
    Vigorita VJ, Minkowitz B, Dichiara JF, Higham PA (1993) A histomorphometric and histologic analysis of the implant interface in five successful, autopsy-retrieved, non- cemented porous-coated knee arthroplasties. Clin Orthop 293: 211–218PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 41.
    Volz RG.Nisbet JK.Lee RW.McMurtry MG (1988) The mechanical stability of various noncemented tibial components. Clin Orthop 226: 38–42Google Scholar
  62. 42.
    Vyskocil P, Gerber C, Bamert P (1999) Radiolucent lines and component stability in knee arthroplasty. Standard versus fluoroscopically assisted radiographs.) Bone Joint Surg[Brl81–B: 24–26Google Scholar
  63. 43.
    Whiteside LA (1994) Four screws for fixation of the tibial component in cementless total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 299: 72–76PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 44.
    Whiteside LA (1995) Effect of porous-coating configuration on tibial osteolysis after total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 321: 92–97PubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 45.
    Wright J, Ewald FC, Walker PS (1990) Total knee arthroplasty with the kinematic prosthesis. Results after five to nine years: a follow-up note. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 72– A: 1003–1009Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. B. Stiehl
  • Karel J. Hamelynck
  • James B. Stiehl
  • Paul E. Voorhorst
  • T. Y. Kashiwagi
  • J. G. Boldt
  • P. A. Keblish

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations