IS PATELLAR RESURFACING AN IMPLANT-SPECIFIC ISSUE?

Timothy McAleese; Mark Quinn; Stephen Graves; Gavin Clark

doi:10.1302/1358-992X.2021.2.083

Article alerts Social media

Current issue

Research

IS PATELLAR RESURFACING AN IMPLANT-SPECIFIC ISSUE?

The British Orthopaedic Research Society (BORS) Annual Meeting 2020, held online, 7–8 September 2020.

Timothy McAleese
Mark Quinn
Stephen Graves
Gavin Clark

IS PATELLAR RESURFACING AN IMPLANT-SPECIFIC ISSUE?

McAleese T, Quinn M, Graves S, Clark G. IS PATELLAR RESURFACING AN IMPLANT-SPECIFIC ISSUE?. Orthop Procs. 2021;103-B(SUPP_2):83-83. doi:10.1302/1358-992X.2021.2.083

McAleese, Timothy, et al. “IS PATELLAR RESURFACING AN IMPLANT-SPECIFIC ISSUE?.” Orthopaedic Proceedings, vol. 103-B, no. SUPP_2, 2021, pp. 83-83., https://doi.org/10.1302/1358-992X.2021.2.083

McAleese, T., Quinn, M., Graves, S., & Clark, G. (2021). IS PATELLAR RESURFACING AN IMPLANT-SPECIFIC ISSUE?. Orthopaedic Proceedings, 103-B(SUPP_2), 83-83. https://doi.org/10.1302/1358-992X.2021.2.083

McAleese, T., Quinn, M., Graves, S. and Clark, G. (2021) “IS PATELLAR RESURFACING AN IMPLANT-SPECIFIC ISSUE?.” Orthopaedic Proceedings, 103-B(SUPP_2), pp. 83-83. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1302/1358-992X.2021.2.083

McAleese, Timothy, Mark Quinn, Stephen Graves, and Gavin Clark. “IS PATELLAR RESURFACING AN IMPLANT-SPECIFIC ISSUE?.” Orthopaedic Proceedings 103-B, no. SUPP_2 (2021): 83-83. https://doi.org/10.1302/1358-992X.2021.2.083

McAleese T, Quinn M, Graves S, Clark G. IS PATELLAR RESURFACING AN IMPLANT-SPECIFIC ISSUE?. Orthop Procs. 2021 Mar 1;103-B(SUPP_2):83-83. https://doi.org/10.1302/1358-992X.2021.2.083

Copy to clipboard

BibTeX

EndNote

RIS

Abstract

Objectives

Patella resurfacing in primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) remains a contentious issue. Australian rates of patellar resurfacing are 66.6%, significantly higher compared to UK rates of 8–15% and Swedish rates of 2%. Resurfacing has gained popularity in Australia since registry data has shown decreased revision rates with no increase in patellar component related complications. We present for discussion an analysis of 113,694 total knee arthroplasties using commonly implanted prostheses in the UK.

Methods

We included all TKA's since the Australian register's conception on 01/09/1999 for a primary diagnosis of osteoarthritis involving the use of either the Triathlon or Duracon implant with and without patellar components. The primary outcome of the study was time to revision for Triathlon's resurfaced and non-resurfaced prosthesis compared to the Duracon's equivalent data. We also analysed the reasons for revision between the 4 groups, type of revision and complication rates. We then compared minimally stabilised and posterior stabilised prostheses.

Results

The cumulative revision rate for Triathlon prostheses with resurfacing after 12 years was 3.2% (95% CI, 2.9% to 3.6%) compared to 5.6% (95% CI, 5.0% to 6.2%) without resurfacing. Duracon's equivalent data was 6.3% with resurfacing and 5.9% without resurfacing. Triathlon prosthesis with resurfacing have much lower rates of revision due to loosening, patellofemoral pain, patellar erosion compared to unresurfaced Triathlon prostheses.

Conclusion

Triathlon with re-surfacing has lower revision rates regardless of age or BMI. Previous concerns regarding patellofemoral loosening, tibial wear, maltracking relate to Duracon only, indicating the importance of implant specific studies.

Declaration of Interest

(b) declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research reported:I declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research project.