Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluation of anterior knee pain in a PS total knee arthroplasty: the role of patella-friendly femoral component and patellar size

  • Original Article
  • Published:
MUSCULOSKELETAL SURGERY Aims and scope Submit manuscript

An Erratum to this article was published on 21 March 2015

Abstract

Background

Total knee arthroplasty gives excellent objective results. Nevertheless, the subjective findings do not match the normal knee perception: Often, it depends on patellar pain onset. In this study, we analyzed clinical and radiological items that can affect resurfaced patellar tracking, and role of a patella-friendly femoral component and patellar size on patellar pain onset.

Materials and methods

Thirty consecutive patients were implanted using the same-cemented posterior-stabilized TKA associated with patella resurfacing. Fifteen patients were implanted using a classical femoral component, while another 15 patients were implanted using a patella-friendly femoral component. The statistical analysis was set to detect a significant difference (p < 0.05) in clinical and radiological outcomes related to several surgical parameters. Clinical and functional outcomes were recorded using the Knee Society Scoring System (KSS) and patellar pain with the Burnett questionnaire.

Results

Mean follow-up was 25 months. KSS results were excellent in both groups. Group 2 (patella-friendly femoral model) reached a higher percentage of 100 points in the clinical and functional KSS, but there was no statistical difference. Also, no statistical differences for Burnett Questionnaire results were recorded. We had one case of patellar clunk syndrome in the standard femoral component group and one poor result in the second group. Postoperative radiographic measurements evidenced no statistical differences in both groups. In group 1 (classical femoral component), better significant result (p < 0.05) war recorded at clinical evaluation according to the Knee Society Scoring System (KSS) in case of wider patellar component resurfaced.

Conclusions

The present study reveals no statistically significant difference in the incidence of anterior knee pain between classical and “patella-friendly” femoral components. With the particular type of implant design utilized in this study, when the classical femoral component is used, bigger patellar implant sizes (38 and 41 mm) showed superior clinical outcome.

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. 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  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Burnett RS, Boone JL, Rosenzweig SD, Steger-May K, Barrack RL (2009) Patellar resurfacing compared with non-resurfacing in total knee arthroplasty. JBJS Am 91:2562–2567

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Burnett RS, Bourne RB (2004) Indications for patellar resurfacing in total knee arthroplasty. Instr Course Lect 53:167–186

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Clarke HD, Fuchs R, Scuderi GR, Mills EL, Scott WN, Insall JN (2006) The influence of femoral component design in the elimination of patellar clunk in posterior-stabilized total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 21:167–171

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Dennis DA, Kim RH, Johnson DJ, Springer BD, Fehring TK, Sharma A (2011) Control-matched evaluation of painful patellar crepitus after total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 469:10–17

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Emmerson KP, Moran CG, Pinder IM (1996) Survivorship analysis of the kinematic stabilizer total knee replacement: a 10–14 year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Br 78:441–445

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Figgie HE, Goldberg VM, Heiple KG, Moller HS, Gordon NH (1986) The influence of tibial-patello-femoral location on function of the knee in patients with the posterior stabilized condylar knee prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 68:1035–1040

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Fukunaga K, Kobayashi A, Minoda Y, Iwaki H, Hashimoto Y, Takaoka K (2009) The incidence of the patellar clunk syndrome in a recently designed mobile-bearing posterior stabilized total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 91:463–468

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Grelsamer RP, Meadows S (1992) The modified Insall-Salvati ratio for assessment of patellar height. Clin Orthop Relat Res 282:170–176

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Hozack WJ, Rothman RH, Booth RE, Balderston RA (1989) The patellar clunk syndrome: a complication of posterior stabilized total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 241:203–208

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Indelli PF, Marcucci M, Pipino G, Charlton S, Carulli C, Innocenti M (2014) The effects of femoral component design on the patella-femoral joint in a PS total knee arthroplasty. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 134:59–64

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Iranpour F, Merican AM, Amis AA, Cobb JP (2008) The width: thickness ratio of the patella. Clin Orthop Relat Res 466:1198–1203

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Mulhall KJ, Ghomrawi HM, Scully S, Callaghan JJ, Saleh KJ (2006) Current etiologies and modes of failure in total knee arthroplasty revision. Clin Orthop Relat Res 446:45–50

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Nilsdotter AK, Toksvig-Larsen S, Roos EM (2009) Knee arthroplasty: are patients’ expectations fulfilled? A prospective study of pain and function in 102 patients with 5-year follow-up. Acta Orthop 80(1):55–61

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Patil S, Steklov N, Colwell CW, Kester M, D’Lima DD (2013) Effect of tibial tray malalignment on micromotion and subsidence: a preliminary report. Open Bone J 5:1–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Pollock DC, Ammeen DJ, Engh GA (2002) Synovial entrapment: a complication of posterior stabilized total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 84:2174–2178

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Ranawat AS, Ranawat CS, Slamin JE, Dennis DA (2006) Patellar crepitation in the PFC Sigma total knee system. Orthopedics 29(9 Suppl):68–70

    Google Scholar 

  19. Ranawat CS, Luessenhop CP, Rodriquez JA (1997) The press-fit condylar modular total knee system: four to six year results with a posterio-cruciate-substituting design. J Bone Joint Surg Am 79:342–348

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Schroer WC, Diesfeld PJ, Reedy ME, LeMarr A (2009) Association of increased knee flexion and patella clunk syndrome after minisubvastus total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 24:281–287

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Sharkey PF, Hozack WJ, Rothman RH, Shastri S, Jacoby SM (2002) Why are total knee arthroplasties failing today? Clin Orthop Relat Res 404:7–13

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Sikorski JM (2008) Alignment in total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 90:1121–1127

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Suda AJ, Seeger JB, Bitsch RG, Krueger M, Clarius M (2010) Are patients’ expectations of hip and knee arthroplasty fulfilled? A prospective study of 130 patients. Orthopaedics 33:76–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Human and animal rights

All human and animal studies have been approved by the appropriate ethics committee (Hospital San Luigi Gonzaga–Orbassano, Turin–Italy) and have therefore been performed in accordance with the ethical standards laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments.

Informed consent

All persons gave their informed consent prior to their inclusion in the study.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Unit of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Hospital San Luigi Gonzaga, University of Turin, Regione Gonzole 10, Orbassano, 10043, Turin, Italy

    F. Atzori, L. Sabatini & A. Massè

  2. University School of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, University of Turin, Turin, Italy

    D. Deledda, M. Schirò & R. L. Baido

Authors
  1. F. Atzori
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. L. Sabatini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. D. Deledda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. M. Schirò
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. R. L. Baido
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. A. Massè
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to F. Atzori.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Atzori, F., Sabatini, L., Deledda, D. et al. Evaluation of anterior knee pain in a PS total knee arthroplasty: the role of patella-friendly femoral component and patellar size. Musculoskelet Surg 99, 75–83 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12306-015-0347-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12306-015-0347-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation