Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Long-term follow-up of a non-randomised prospective cohort of one hundred and ninety two total knee arthroplasties using the NexGen implant

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

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to retrospectively analyse the clinical, functional and radiological outcomes, and the long-term survivorship of the NexGen Legacy Posterior Stabilised (LPS) knee prosthesis (Zimmer Biomet, Warsaw, IN, USA).

Methods

Between 1996 and 2001, 197 primary NexGen LPS total knee arthroplasties (TKAs) were implanted by a single surgeon; 132 prostheses in 124 patients with a minimum follow-up of 15 years were included in the study. Surgical procedure and post-operative care were the same for all patients. All patients were assessed through the International Knee Society (IKS) scores and range of motion (ROM). A complete radiological study was performed for all patients. Failure was defined as revision of at least one prosthetic component for any cause.

Results

IKS knee and function scores, as well as ROM and leg alignment, significantly improved at the latest follow-up (p ≤ 0.05). No significant differences were found between fixed- and mobile-bearing groups. Seven implant failures were reported; the implant survival rate (overall) was 94.7% at the latest follow-up.

Conclusions

This study showed optimal survivorship of the NexGen LPS, associated with a significant improvement in overall outcomes at a minimum follow-up of 15 years.

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
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E et al (2007) Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89:780–785. doi:10.2106/JBJS.F.00222

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Porter M, Borrof M, Gregg P, et al. (2013) 10th Annual Report 2013-National Joint Registry of England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. http://www.njrcentre.org.uk/njrcentre/Portals/0/Documents/England/Reports/10th_annual_report/NJR 10th Annual Report 2013 B.pdf. Accessed 16 Jun 2016

  3. Lutzner J, Hubel U, Kirschner S et al (2011) Long-term results in total knee arthroplasty a meta-analysis of revision rates and functional outcome. Chirurg 82:618–624. doi:10.1007/s00104-010-2001-8

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Pavone V, Boettner F, Fickert S, Sculco TP (2001) Total condylar knee arthroplasty: a long-term followup. Clin Orthop Relat Res 18–25. 10.1097/00003086-200107000-00005

  5. Park KK, Chang CB, Kang YG et al (2007) Correlation of maximum flexion with clinical outcome after total knee replacement in Asian patients. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 89:604–608. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.89B5.18117

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Pedraza W, Beckmann J, Mayer C et al (2016) Partially loaded plain radiographic measurement to evaluate rotational alignment in total knee arthroplasty. Int Orthop 40:2519–2526. doi:10.1007/s00264-016-3247-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Ritter MA, Harty LD, Davis KE et al (2003) Predicting range of motion after total knee arthroplasty. Clustering, log-linear regression, and regression tree analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 85–A:1278–1285

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Nakano N, Matsumoto T, Muratsu H et al (2014) Results of total knee arthroplasty with NexGen LPS-Flex for osteoarthritis in the valgus knee: a study of 26 patients followed for a minimum of 2 years. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 25:375–380. doi:10.1007/s00590-014-1505-1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Lachiewicz PF, Soileau ES (2014) Fixation, survival and osteolysis with a modern posterior-stabilized total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 29:66–70. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2013.05.002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Oh KJ, Goodman SB, Yang JH (2011) Prospective, randomized study between insall-burstein II and NexGen legacy with a minimum 9-year follow-Up. J Arthroplasty 26:1232–1238. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2010.12.018

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Norman Scott W (2011) Insall & Scott Surgery of the knee, 5th edn. Churchill Livingstone, London

  12. Fuchs R, Mills EL, Clarke HD et al (2006) A third-generation, posterior-stabilized knee prosthesis: early results after follow-up of 2 to 6 years. J Arthroplasty 21:821–825. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2005.10.008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Nedopil AJ, Howell SM, Hull ML (2017) What clinical characteristics and radiographic one parameters are associated with patellofemoral instability after kinematically aligned total knee arthroplasty? Int Orthop 41:283-291. 10.1007/s00264-016-3287-z

  14. Chen JY, Lee WC, Chan HY et al (2016) Drain use in total knee arthroplasty is neither associated with a greater transfusion rate nor a longer hospital stay. Int Orthop 40:2505–2509. doi:10.1007/s00264-016-3239-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD, Scott WN (1989) Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop Relat Res (248):13–14

  16. Clarke HD, Fuchs R, Scuderi GR et al (2006) The influence of femoral component design in the elimination of patellar clunk in posterior-stabilized total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 21:167–171. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2005.05.024

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Koskinen E, Paavolainen P, Ylinen P et al (2010) Mid-term results for three contemporary total knee replacement designs—a comparative study of 104 patients with primary osteoarthritis. Scand J Surg 99:250–255

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Ip D, Wu WC, Tsang WL (2003) Early results of posterior-stabilised NexGen legacy total knee arthroplasty. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 11:38–42

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Tanzer M, Smith K, Burnett S (2002) Posterior-stabilized versus cruciate-retaining total knee arthroplasty: balancing the gap. J Arthroplasty 17:813–819. doi:10.1054/arth.2002.34814

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kim Y-H, Park J-W, Kim J-S (2012) High-flexion total knee arthroplasty: survivorship and prevalence of osteolysis: results after a minimum of ten years of follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 94:1378–1384. doi:10.2106/JBJS.K.01229

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Bistolfi A, Massazza G, Lee G-C et al (2013) Comparison of fixed and mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty at a mean follow-up of 116 months. J Bone Joint Surg Am 95, e83. doi:10.2106/JBJS.L.00327

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Bozic KJ, Kinder J, Menegini M et al (2005) Implant survivorship and complication rates after total knee arthroplasty with a third-generation cemented system: 5 to 8 years followup. Clin Orthop Relat Res 430:117–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. (2016) Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. https://aoanjrr.sahmri.com/documents/10180/275066/Hip%252C Knee %2526 Shoulder Arthroplasty. Accessed 18 Nov 2016

  24. Roberts VI, Esler CN, Harper WM (2007) A 15-year follow-up study of 4606 primary total knee replacements. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 89:1452–1456. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.89B11.19783

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Lachiewicz PF, Soileau ES (2009) Fifteen-year survival and osteolysis associated with a modular posterior stabilized knee replacement A concise follow-up of a previous report. J Bone Joint Surg Am 91:1419–1423. doi:10.2106/JBJS.H.01351

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Victor J, Ghijselings S, Tajdar F et al (2014) Total knee arthroplasty at 15–17 years: does implant design affect outcome? Int Orthop 38:235–241. doi:10.1007/s00264-013-2231-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Guha AR, Debnath UK, Graham NM (2008) Radiolucent lines below the tibial component of a total knee replacement (TKR)—a comparison between single-and two-stage cementation techniques. Int Orthop 32:453–457. doi:10.1007/s00264-007-0345-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Kim YH, Choi Y, Kim JS (2010) Osteolysis in well-functioning fixed- and mobile-bearing TKAs in younger patients. Clin Orthop Relat Res 468:3084–3093. doi:10.1007/s11999-010-1336-2

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dipartimento Multidisciplinare di Specialità Medico-Chirurgiche e Odontoiatriche, Università degli Studi della Campania Luigi Vanvitelli, Via Luigi De Crecchio 6, 80138, Naples, Italy

    Alfredo Schiavone Panni, Rocco D’Apolito, Carlo Perisano & Michele Vasso

  2. UOC Ortopedia e Traumatologia, Ospedale Santo Spirito in Saxia, ASL Roma 1, Lungotevere in Saxia 1, 00193, Rome, Italy

    Franceso Falez

  3. Dipartimento di Medicina e Scienze della Salute, Università del Molise, Via Francesco De Sanctis, 86100, Campobasso, Italy

    Katia Corona

Authors
  1. Alfredo Schiavone Panni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Franceso Falez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Rocco D’Apolito
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Katia Corona
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Carlo Perisano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Michele Vasso
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rocco D’Apolito.

Ethics declarations

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Conflict of interest

Alfredo Schiavone Panni, Francesco Falez, Rocco D’Apolito, Katia Corona, Carlo Perisano and Michele Vasso declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. For this type of study formal consent is not required.

Additional information

Level of evidence IV: retrospective case-series study

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schiavone Panni, A., Falez, F., D’Apolito, R. et al. Long-term follow-up of a non-randomised prospective cohort of one hundred and ninety two total knee arthroplasties using the NexGen implant. International Orthopaedics (SICOT) 41, 1155–1162 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-017-3438-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-017-3438-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation