TY - JOUR
T1 - Long-term clinical outcomes and survivorship of press-fit condylar sigma fixed-bearing and mobile-bearing total knee prostheses in the same patients
AU - Kim, Young Hoo
AU - Park, Jang Won
AU - Kim, Jun Shik
AU - Kulkarni, Sourabh S.
AU - Kim, Yoon Hong
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
Copyright © 2014 By The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Incorporated.
PY - 2014/10/1
Y1 - 2014/10/1
N2 - Conclusions: The results of the present long-term clinical study suggest that excellent clinical and radiographic results were achieved with both the press-fit condylar Sigma mobile and fixed-bearing cruciate-retaining total knee designs. We found no significant clinical advantage for a mobile-bearing over a fixed-bearing total knee prosthesis.Results: Postoperative total knee scores (95 and 94 points), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (19 and 18 points), University of California, Los Angeles activity score (both prostheses, 5 points), range of motion (129° ± 6.3° and 127° ± 6.8°), and radiographic findings did not differ significantly between the press-fit condylar Sigma mobile and fixed-bearing designs at the final follow-up. The prevalence of aseptic loosening (1.4% and 1.8%) did not differ significantly between the mobile and fixed-bearing implant designs. No knee in either group had osteolysis. The estimated survival rate with revision as the end point was 98.2% (95% confidence interval, 91% to 99%) and 97.5% (95% confidence interval, 91% to 99%) at 12.1 years for the mobile and fixed-bearing implant groups, respectively.Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.Background: We are aware of no study that has compared press-fit condylar Sigma fixed-bearing and mobile-bearing total knee prostheses in the same patients after more than ten years of follow-up. The purpose of the current study was to compare these two implants with respect to the functional and radiographic results, prevalence of osteolysis, and overall revision rates at a mean of 12.1 years of follow-up.Methods: The study consisted of a consecutive series of 444 patients (mean age [and standard deviation], 66.5 ± 7.4 years) who underwent simultaneous bilateral total knee arthroplasty, with one side treated immediately after the other. All of the patients received a press-fit condylar Sigma mobile-bearing prosthesis on one side and a press-fit condylar Sigma fixed-bearing prosthesis on the contralateral side. The minimum duration of follow-up was ten years (mean, 12.1 years; range, ten to thirteen years). At the time of each follow-up visit, the patients were assessed clinically and radiographically.
AB - Conclusions: The results of the present long-term clinical study suggest that excellent clinical and radiographic results were achieved with both the press-fit condylar Sigma mobile and fixed-bearing cruciate-retaining total knee designs. We found no significant clinical advantage for a mobile-bearing over a fixed-bearing total knee prosthesis.Results: Postoperative total knee scores (95 and 94 points), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (19 and 18 points), University of California, Los Angeles activity score (both prostheses, 5 points), range of motion (129° ± 6.3° and 127° ± 6.8°), and radiographic findings did not differ significantly between the press-fit condylar Sigma mobile and fixed-bearing designs at the final follow-up. The prevalence of aseptic loosening (1.4% and 1.8%) did not differ significantly between the mobile and fixed-bearing implant designs. No knee in either group had osteolysis. The estimated survival rate with revision as the end point was 98.2% (95% confidence interval, 91% to 99%) and 97.5% (95% confidence interval, 91% to 99%) at 12.1 years for the mobile and fixed-bearing implant groups, respectively.Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.Background: We are aware of no study that has compared press-fit condylar Sigma fixed-bearing and mobile-bearing total knee prostheses in the same patients after more than ten years of follow-up. The purpose of the current study was to compare these two implants with respect to the functional and radiographic results, prevalence of osteolysis, and overall revision rates at a mean of 12.1 years of follow-up.Methods: The study consisted of a consecutive series of 444 patients (mean age [and standard deviation], 66.5 ± 7.4 years) who underwent simultaneous bilateral total knee arthroplasty, with one side treated immediately after the other. All of the patients received a press-fit condylar Sigma mobile-bearing prosthesis on one side and a press-fit condylar Sigma fixed-bearing prosthesis on the contralateral side. The minimum duration of follow-up was ten years (mean, 12.1 years; range, ten to thirteen years). At the time of each follow-up visit, the patients were assessed clinically and radiographically.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84907533632&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.2106/JBJS.M.01130
DO - 10.2106/JBJS.M.01130
M3 - Article
C2 - 25274796
AN - SCOPUS:84907533632
SN - 0021-9355
VL - 96
SP - e168
JO - Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery - American Volume
JF - Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery - American Volume
IS - 19
ER -