Premium
Characteristics of three different patellar implant designs in total knee arthroplasty
Author(s) -
Gharaibeh Monther A.,
Chen Darren B.,
Wood Jil A.,
MacDessi Samuel J.
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
anz journal of surgery
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.426
H-Index - 70
eISSN - 1445-2197
pISSN - 1445-1433
DOI - 10.1111/ans.15988
Subject(s) - medicine , implant , total knee arthroplasty , facetectomy , arthroplasty , lateral release , patella , dentistry , surgery , orthodontics , psychiatry , laminectomy , spinal cord
Background Despite debate over the role of patellar resurfacing in total knee arthroplasty, many surgeons feel it decreases re‐operation rates and anterior pain, and an increasing number are adopting resurfacing. This study compares intra‐operative characteristics of different patellar implants to assist surgeons in gaining better understanding of these implants. Methods The three most commonly used patellar implants (inset, onlay round and onlay oval) were allocated randomly to 120 patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty. We compared the groups in terms of implant size, bone coverage, lateral underhang (uncovered lateral facet) and need for partial lateral facetectomy. We also compared the patient‐reported outcome measures between the groups at 6 months post‐operatively. Results The inset, onlay round and onlay oval designs had bone coverage of 48.5%, 65.9% and 85.9%, respectively ( P < 0.01). Similarly, the onlay‐oval implant was found to have the smallest lateral underhang of all three designs (inset 11.6 mm; onlay round 6.9 mm, onlay oval 1.6 mm, P < 0.01). The onlay‐oval design was the largest implant with a median size of 35 mm, compared to 23 mm for the inset and 32 mm for the onlay round ( P < 0.01). In addition, patellae using onlay‐oval implants required significantly fewer lateral facetectomies due to improved bone coverage (inset 95%; onlay round 87%; onlay oval 3%; P < 0.01). Finally, comparison of patient‐reported outcome measures between the groups showed no difference at an early assessment of 6 months. Conclusion Onlay‐oval design allows for the use of a larger implant, improving bone coverage and reducing the need for partial lateral facetectomy; however, early assessment of outcomes shows no difference between the three designs.