Fixed-bearing versus high-flexion RP total knee arthroplasty (TKA): midterm results of a randomized controlled trial

Background We compared the midterm results after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) using PFC Sigma RP-F mobile model with PFC Sigma PS fixed model. Materials and methods In this randomized controlled trial, we analyzed 50 knees that underwent TKA with PFC Sigma RP-F and 60 knees with PFC Sigma PS fixed...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of orthopaedics and traumatology 2018-07, Vol.19 (1), p.2-6, Article 2
Main Authors: Chaudhry, Amit, Goyal, V. K.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Arthroplasty (knee)
Biocompatibility
Biomedical materials
Clinical trials
Conservative Orthopedics
Control methods
Dislocations
Election results
Joint surgery
Knee
Loosening
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Midterm results
Original
Original Article
Orthopedics
Osteolysis
Prostheses
Prosthetics
Randomization
Rheumatology
Sigma RP-F mobile model
Sports Medicine
Surgical implants
Surgical Orthopedics
Total knee arthroplasty
Traumatic Surgery
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Background We compared the midterm results after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) using PFC Sigma RP-F mobile model with PFC Sigma PS fixed model. Materials and methods In this randomized controlled trial, we analyzed 50 knees that underwent TKA with PFC Sigma RP-F and 60 knees with PFC Sigma PS fixed model. The follow-up period ranged from 76 to 104 months. Results The knee score, function score, and radiographic evaluation were significantly not different between the two groups at final follow-up. No revisions, subluxations, dislocations, or infections were seen. Also, no radiographic evidence of component loosening, osteolysis, or malalignment was observed in any knee. The results for both groups show good patient satisfaction. Conclusions The midterm clinical and radiographic results of the two prostheses did not show significant differences between the two groups. Level of evidence Level of evidence is level II.
ISSN:1590-9921
1590-9999
DOI:10.1186/s10195-018-0493-z