Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Midterm clinical results of the Autocentric II patellofemoral prosthesis

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Orthopaedics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We studied the outcome of patellofemoral arthroplasties using the Autocentric prosthesis implanted in our clinic between 1994 and 2004. New insight on indications and contraindications motivated us to find risk factors in the failure of this prosthesis. Twenty-four patients had surgery for patellofemoral arthritis not responding to exhaustive nonoperative measures. The mean age at the time of patellofemoral arthroplasty (PFA) was 63.4 (SD 11.3, range 38–81) years with a mean follow-up of 4.8 (SD 2.9, range 2–11) years. Additional interventions were necessary in 21 knees during follow-up in our population, and seven knees required total knee arthroplasty (TKA) mainly due to progressive tibiofemoral osteoarthritis and maltracking of the patella. The patient outcomes and quality of life scores showed disappointing results, even after revision to TKA. This retrospective analysis underlines the importance of strict indications for patellofemoral arthroplasty and, in particular, of contraindications.

Résumé

Les résultats à moyen terme de la prothèse fémoro patellaire Autocentric T. Nous avons étudié dans notre service, le devenir des arthroplasties patello fémorales utilisant la prothèse autocentric « T » posées entre 1994 et 2004. Une nouvelle approche des indications et des contre indications nous permet de mettre en évidence les facteurs de risques et d’échecs de cette prothèse. 24 patients ont été opérés pour une arthrose fémoro patellaire, ceux-ci n’ayant pas répondu à tous les critères du traitement conservateur. L’âge moyen au moment de la mise en place de la prothèse fémoro patellaire (PFA) a été de 63.4 ans (SD 11.3, puis 38 à 81) avec un suivi moyen de 4.8 ans (SD 2.9, 2 à 11). Des interventions complémentaires ont été nécessaires sur 21 genoux, 7 genoux ayant nécessité la mise en place d’une arthroplastie totale du fait d’une évolution progressive vers une arthrose fémoro tibiale ou du fait de conflits au niveau de la rotule, avec une mauvaise course rotulienne. Le devenir des patients et la qualité de vie sont peu satisfaisants notamment après révision par prothèse totale du genou. Cette analyse rétrospective nous permet de confirmer l’importance du respect des indications des prothèses fémoro patellaires et, notamment des contre indications.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ackroyd CE, Chir B (2005) Development and early results of a new patellofemoral arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 436:7–13

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Argenson JN, Flecher X, Parratte S, Aubaniac JM (2005) Patellofemoral arthroplasty: an update. Clin Orthop Relat Res 440:50–53

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Argenson JN, Guillaume JM, Aubaniac JM (1995) Is there a place for patellofemoral arthroplasty? Clin Orthop Relat Res 321:162–167

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Cartier P, Sanouiller JL, Khefacha A (2005) Long-term results with the first patellofemoral prosthesis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 436:47–54

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Cooper C, McAlindon T, Snow S, Vines K, Young P, Kirwan J, Dieppe P (1994) Mechanical and constitutional risk factors for symptomatic knee osteoarthritis: differences between medial tibiofemoral and patellofemoral disease. J Rheumatol 21(2):307–313

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Cossey AJ, Spriggins AJ (2006) Computer-assisted patellofemoral arthroplasty: a mechanism for optimizing rotation. J Arthroplast 21(3):420–427

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Dunbar MJ, Robertsson O, Ryd L, Lidgren L (2001) Appropriate questionnaires for knee arthroplasty. Results of a survey of 3600 patients from The Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Registry. J Bone Jt Surg 83(3):339–344

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Iwano T, Kurosawa H, Tokuyama H, Hoshikawa Y (1990) Roentgenographic and clinical findings of patellofemoral osteoarthrosis. With special reference to its relationship to femorotibial osteoarthrosis and etiologic factors. Clin Orthop Relat Res 252:190–197

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kellgren JH, Lawrence JS (1957) Radiological assessment of osteo-arthrosis. Ann Rheum Dis 16(4):494–502

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Kooijman HJ, Driessen AP, van Horn JR (2003) Long-term results of patellofemoral arthroplasty. A report of 56 arthroplasties with 17 years of follow-up. J Bone Jt Surg 85(6):836–840

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Leadbetter WB, Ragland PS, Mont MA (2005) The appropriate use of patellofemoral arthroplasty: an analysis of reported indications, contraindications, and failures. Clin Orthop Relat Res 436:91–99

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Leadbetter WB, Seyler TM, Ragland PS, Mont MA (2006) Indications, contraindications, and pitfalls of patellofemoral arthroplasty. J Bone Jt Surg Am 88(Suppl 4):122–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Lonner JH (2004) Patellofemoral arthroplasty: pros, cons, and design considerations. Clin Orthop Relat Res 428:158–165

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Lonner JH, Jasko JG, Booth RE Jr (2006) Revision of a failed patellofemoral arthroplasty to a total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Jt Surg Am 88(11):2337–2342

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Morra EA, Greenwald AS (2006) Patellofemoral replacement polymer stress during daily activities: a finite element study. J Bone Jt Surg Am 88(Suppl 4):213–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Ostermeier S, Holst M, Hurschler C, Windhagen H, Stukenborg-Colsman C (2007) Dynamic measurement of patellofemoral kinematics and contact pressure after lateral retinacular release: an in vitro study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 15(5):547–554

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Outerbridge HK, Outerbridge AR, Outerbridge RE (1995) The use of a lateral patellar autologous graft for the repair of a large osteochondral defect in the knee. J Bone Jt Surg Am 77(1):65–72

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Roos EM, Roos HP, Lohmander LS, Ekdahl C, Beynnon BD (1998) Knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score (KOOS)—development of a self-administered outcome measure. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 28(2):88–96

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Sisto DJ, Sarin VK (2006) Custom patellofemoral arthroplasty of the knee. J Bone Jt Surg Am 88(7):1475–1480

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD (1992) The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 30(6):473–483

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Sint Elisabeth Hospital Tilburg, Hilvarenbeekseweg 60, 5022, GC, Tilburg, The Netherlands

    J. M. F. van Wagenberg, B. Speigner, T. Gosens & J. de Waal Malefijt

Authors
  1. J. M. F. van Wagenberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. B. Speigner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. T. Gosens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. J. de Waal Malefijt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. M. F. van Wagenberg.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

van Wagenberg, J.M.F., Speigner, B., Gosens, T. et al. Midterm clinical results of the Autocentric II patellofemoral prosthesis. International Orthopaedics (SICOT) 33, 1603–1608 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-009-0719-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-009-0719-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation