Background. No study compared the clinical results of the posterior-stabilized mobile-bearing knee with those of nonposterior-stabilized mobile-bearing knee in the same patients. The purpose of this study was to examine whether the clinical and radiographic results, range of motion, patients satisfaction, and complication rates would be better in the knees with a posterior-stabilized mobile-bearing knee than in the knees with a nonposterior-stabilized mobile-bearing knee. Methods. One hundred and fourteen patients (mean age, 67.9 years) received a nonposterior-stabilized mobile-bearing knee prosthesis in one knee and a posterior-stabilized mobile-bearing knee prosthesis in the contralateral knee. Seven patients were men, and 107 were women. At the time of each follow-up (mean, 7.3 years; range, seven to 7.6 years), the patients were assessed clinically and radiographically. Results. The mean postoperative Knee Society knee score (95 points versus 96 points, p=0.176), Hospital for Special Surgery knee score (92 points versus 93 points, p=0.077), and Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis score (21 versus 20 points, p=0.785) were similar between the two group. At the final follow-up, the average range of motion was 27.7° (range, 70° to 150°) in the knees with a nonposterior stabilized mobile-bearing prosthesis and it was 132° (range, 90 to 150 °) in the knees with a posterior-stabilized mobile-bearing prosthesis. Complication rates (2.6% versus 1.8%) were similar between the two groups. The estimated survival rate was 97.4% at eight years with an overall revision rate of 2.6% (three of 114 knees) in the nonposterior-stabilized mobile-bearing prosthesis group and 98.2% at eight years with an overall revision rate of 1.8% (two of 114 knees) in the posterior-stabilized mobile-bearing prosthesis group. Conclusions. After a minimum duration of follow-up of seven years, we found no significant differences between the two groups with regard to the clinical and radiographic results, or patient satisfaction, or complication rate. However, the posterior-stabilized mobile-bearing prosthesis group had a greater range of knee motion than the nonposterior-stabilized mobile-bearing prosthesis group

Patients with transfemoral amputation (TFA) often experience problems related to the use of socket-suspended prostheses. The clinical development of osseointegrated percutaneous prostheses for patients with a TFA started in 1990, based on the long-term successful results of osseointegrated dental implants.

Between1999 and 2007, 51 patients with 55 TFAs were consecutively enrolled in a prospective, single-centre non-randomised study and followed for two years. The indication for amputation was trauma in 33 patients (65%) and tumour in 12 (24%). A two-stage surgical procedure was used to introduce a percutaneous implant to which an external amputation prosthesis was attached. The assessment of outcome included the use of two self-report questionnaires, the Questionnaire for Persons with a Transfemoral Amputation (Q-TFA) and the Short-Form (SF)-36.

The cumulative survival at two years’ follow-up was 92%. The Q-TFA showed improved prosthetic use, mobility, global situation and fewer problems (all p < 0.001). The physical function SF-36 scores were also improved (p < 0.001). Superficial infection was the most frequent complication, occurring 41 times in 28 patients (rate of infection 54.9%). Most were treated effectively with oral antibiotics. The implant was removed in four patients because of loosening (three aseptic, one infection).

Osseointegrated percutaneous implants constitute a novel form of treatment for patients with TFA. The high cumulative survival rate at two years (92%) combined with enhanced prosthetic use and mobility, fewer problems and improved quality of life, supports the ‘revolutionary change’ that patients with TFA have reported following treatment with osseointegrated percutaneous prostheses.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:106–13.