Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Orthopaedic Proceedings Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from Orthopaedic Proceedings

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Visit Orthopaedic Proceedings at:

Loading...

Loading...

Full Access

EFFECT OF RETAINING A PATELLAR PROSTHESIS ON PAIN FUNCTIONAL AND SATISFACTION OUTCOMES AFTER REVISION TOTAL KNEE ARTHROPLASTY



Abstract

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effect of prosthetic patellar resurfacing on outcome of revision total knee arthroplasty in a matched cohort study.

From January 1997 to December 1999 126 patients who underwent revision of total knee arthroplasty were identified. The status of the patella was ascertained post revision as to the presence or absence of patellar prosthesis. At a minimum of two years follow-up, pain and function were assessed by questionnaire for WOMAC, Oxford-12, SF-12 and patient satisfaction data. Co-morbidity, surgical exposure, HSS knee scores and ROM were also collected. Univariate and multivariate analysis were performed. Follow-up was obtained in 110 patients (52 with patellar component, 58 bony shell), matched for age (mean 70 and 67 years), sex and co-morbidity scores and followed for a minimum of two years. There was no significant difference between the two cohorts with regards to outcomes of WOMAC pain scores (mean 66 and 74, p=0.14), WOMAC function scores (mean 59 and 65, p=0.22), Oxford- 12 scores (mean 57 and 64, p=0.17), and satisfaction score outcomes (57 and 68, p=0.14). It remains controversial whether the patient’s pain, function and satisfaction are affected in revision total knee arthroplasty by patellar prosthetic resurfacing. Insufficient patellar bone stock may preclude prosthetic resurfacing in which case patel-loplasty is performed. From this series, the presence or absence of a patellar prosthesis does not appear to sig-nificantly affect pain, function, or satisfaction outcomes following revision total knee arthroplasty.

The abstracts were prepared by Mr Tim Briggs. (Editoral Secretary 2003/4) Correspondence should be addressed to him at Lane Farm, Chapel Lane, Totternhoe, Dunstable, Bedfordshire LU6 2BZ, United Kingdom