Saw-box osteotomy versus reamer-box osteotomy in posterior stabilized total knee arthroplasty: a retrospective study of an average five year follow-up

• Published in: International orthopaedics 2024-05, Vol.48 (5), p.1209-1215
• Main Authors: Abdelbadie, Ahmed, Toreih, Ahmed A., El-Adawy, Moawed F., Arafa, Mohamed S.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee - methods; Follow-Up Studies; Humans; Knee Joint - surgery; Knee Prosthesis - adverse effects; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Original Paper; Orthopedics; Osteoarthritis, Knee - surgery; Osteotomy - adverse effects; Osteotomy - methods; Periprosthetic Fractures - surgery; Range of Motion, Articular; Retrospective Studies
• ISSN: 0341-2695; 1432-5195
• DOI: 10.1007/s00264-024-06119-2

Purpose The purpose of this study is to compare the difference of results between two methods of femoral box osteotomy adopted by two designs of posterior stabilized total knee prostheses. Patients and methods Retrospective analysis of the results of two groups of patients operated upon using two primary PS TKA systems, PFC Sigma (DePuy Synthes, Johnson and Johnson®) and Genesis II prosthesis (Smith and Nephew®), with an average of five year follow-up was done. Group 1 included 152 knees in 121 patients and group 2 included 122 knees in 111 patients. The average follow-up period in both groups was five years. The box osteotomy method depends on bone saw in group 1, and bone reamer in group 2. Results The KSS score of group 2 was better in the first six months postoperatively. Then, no significant differences were seen in the remaining follow-up visits. The risk of periprosthetic fractures was significantly higher in group 1 ( p -value 0.040). Survival analysis showed a significantly shorter time for reoperation in group 1 than in group 2 as described by log-rank test, ( p