Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Sex-related outcome differences after implantation of low-contact-stress mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Orthopaedics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of the study was to investigate outcome differences between female and male patients after implantation of low-contact-stress (LCS) mobile-bearing total knee prostheses at a minimum follow-up of five years with respect to clinical and radiological parameters.

Methods

We retrospectively analysed 128 prostheses in 126 patients (90 women and 34 men) using our hospital database. Data was extracted with respect to range of motion (ROM), the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score, the Knee Society Score (KSS) and radiolucent lines on conventional X-rays.

Results

At follow-up, we observed no significant differences between female and male patients after LCS total knee prostheses. Benefit after implantation of LCS total knee prostheses after five years of minimum follow-up was not significantly different between female and male patients in terms of clinical outcome or radiolucent lines.

Conclusions

We found no factors in favour of gender-specific total knee prostheses.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Buechel FF, Pappas MJ, D’Alessio J (2001) Twenty-year evaluation of meniscal bearing and rotating platform knee replacements. Clin Orthop Relat Res 388:41–50

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Callaghan JJ, Squire MW, Goetz DD, Sullivan PM, Johnston RC (2000) Cemented rotating-platform total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 82–1:705–11

    Google Scholar 

  3. Stiehl JB (2002) World experience with low contact stress mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty: a literature review. Orthopaedics 25:s213–17

    Google Scholar 

  4. Parsch D, Krüger M, Moser MT, Geiger F (2009) Follow-up of 11–16 years after modular fixed-bearing TKA. IntOrthop 33:431–435

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Sadoghi P, Leithner A, Weber P, Friesenbichler J, Gruber G, Kastner N, Pohlmann K, Jansson V, Wegener B (2011) Radiolucent lines in low-contact-stress mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty: a blinded and matched case control study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 12:142

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Buechel FF (2001) My platform moveth and that´s all that´s needed! Orthopaedics 24:890–2

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. World Health Organisation: The burden of musculoskeletal conditions at the start of the new millenium. Report of a WHO Scientific Group. WHO Technical Report Series No. 919 2003 [http://whqlibdoc.who.int/trs/WHO_TRS_919.pdf]. Geneva: WHO (accessed 4th December 2007)

  8. Andersen RE, Crespo CJ, Ling SM, Bathon JM, Bartlett SJ (1999) Preva- lence of significant knee pain among older Americans: results from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. J Am Geriatr Soc 47:1435–8

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Thomas E, Peat G, Harris L, Wilkie R, Croft PR (2004) The prevalence of pain and pain interference in a general population of older adults: cross-sectional findings from the North Staffordshire Osteoarthritis Project (NorStOP). Pain 110:361–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Dillon CF, Rasch EK, Gu Q, Hirsch R (2006) Prevalence of knee osteoarthritis in the United States: arthritis data from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 1991–94. J Rheumatol 33:2271–9

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Peat G, Thomas E, Duncan R, Wood L, Wilkie R, Hill J, Hay EM, Croft P (2007) Estimating the probability of radiographic osteoarthritis in the older patient with knee pain. Arthritis Rheum 57:794–802

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Duncan RC, Hay EM, Saklatvala J, Croft PR (2006) Prevalence of radiographic knee osteoarthritis – it all depends on your point of view. Rheumatology 45:757–60

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Vignon E, Valat J-P, Rossignol M, Avouac B, Rozenberg S, Thoumie P, Avouac J, Nordin M, Hilliquin P (2006) Osteoarthritis of the knee and hip and activity: a systematic international review and synthesis (OASIS). Joint Bone Spine 73:442–55

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Lacey RJ, Thomas E, Duncan RC, Peat G (2008) Gender difference in symptomatic radiographic knee osteoarthritis in the Knee Clinical Assessment – CAS(K): A prospective study in the general population. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 9:82

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Munzinger UK, Maffiuletti NA, Guggi T, Bizzini M, Preiss S, Drobny T (2010) Five-year results of the Innex total knee arthroplasty system. Int Orthop 34:1159–1165

    Google Scholar 

  16. Levels of evidence according to the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery – American volume. http://www.jbjs.org/public/instructionsauthors.aspx

  17. Orthopaedic Scores. http://www.orthopaedicscores.com/

  18. Ewald FC (1989) The Knee Society total knee arthroplasty roentgenographic evaluation and scoring system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 248:9–12

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Goslings JC, Gouma DJ (2008) What is a surgical complication? World J Surg 32:952

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Hoening JM, Heisey DM (2001) The abuse of power: The pervasive fallacy of power calculations for data analysis. The American Statistician 55(1):19–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Chin KR, Dalury DF, Zurakowski D, Scott RD (2002) Intraoperative measurements of male and female distal femurs during primary total knee arthroplasty. J Knee Surg 15:213–217

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Hitt K, Shurman JR 2nd, Greene K, McCarthy J, Moskal J, Hoeman T, Mont MA (2003) Anthropometric measurements of the human knee: correlation to the sizing of current knee arthroplasty systems. J Bone Joint Surg Am 85:115–122

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Booth RE Jr (2006) Sex and the total knee: gender-sensitive designs. Orthopedics 29:836–838

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Robertsson O, Dunbar M, Pehrsson T, Knutson K, Lidgren L (2000) Patient satisfaction after knee arthroplasty: a report on 27,372 knees operated on between 1981 and 1995 in Sweden. Acta Orthop Scand 71:262–267

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Harrysson OLA, Robertsson O, Nayfeh JF (2004) Higher cumulative revision rate of knee arthroplasties in younger patients with osteoarthritis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 421:162–168

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Competing interests

There exist no financial or non-financial competing interests in case of any author of this manuscript. No benefits or funds were received in support for the study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Medical University of Graz, Auenbruggerplatz 5, 8036, Graz, Austria

    Norbert Kastner, Gerald Gruber, Jörg Friesenbichler, Michael Pechmann, Andreas Leithner & Patrick Sadoghi

  2. Department of General Dermatology, Medical University of Graz, Auenbruggerplatz 8, 8036, Graz, Austria

    Birgit A. Aigner

  3. Division of Rheumatology and Immunology, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria

    Florentine Fürst

  4. Sports Medicine Research Laboratory, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Children’s Hospital Boston, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

    Patrick Vavken

  5. Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA

    Patrick Vavken

Authors
  1. Norbert Kastner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gerald Gruber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Birgit A. Aigner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jörg Friesenbichler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Michael Pechmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Florentine Fürst
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Patrick Vavken
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Andreas Leithner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Patrick Sadoghi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Patrick Sadoghi.

Additional information

Level of evidence

Level III – retrospective comparative analysis

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kastner, N., Gruber, G., Aigner, B.A. et al. Sex-related outcome differences after implantation of low-contact-stress mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty. International Orthopaedics (SICOT) 36, 1393–1397 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-012-1486-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-012-1486-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation