Loading…
Saw-box osteotomy versus reamer-box osteotomy in posterior stabilized total knee arthroplasty: a retrospective study of an average five year follow-up
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 pr...
Saved in:
| Published in: | International orthopaedics 2024-05, Vol.48 (5), p.1209-1215 |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , , , |
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Subjects: | |
| Citations: | Items that this one cites |
| Online Access: | Get full text |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| cited_by | |
|---|---|
| cites | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c398t-702c3dd48e25df9c5fa0f136d43a7cf0aa9c4f13aa0210ef2c92aeda285067b23 |
| container_end_page | 1215 |
| container_issue | 5 |
| container_start_page | 1209 |
| container_title | International orthopaedics |
| container_volume | 48 |
| creator | Abdelbadie, Ahmed Toreih, Ahmed A. El-Adawy, Moawed F. Arafa, Mohamed S. |
| description | 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
|
| doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s00264-024-06119-2 |
| format | article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_11001703</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2930473513</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c398t-702c3dd48e25df9c5fa0f136d43a7cf0aa9c4f13aa0210ef2c92aeda285067b23</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9UctuFDEQtBARWQI_wAH5yMXgxzy5IBTxkiLlAJytXk97M8EzHmzPhuFHuPItfBmebBIBB2RZVruqq1tVhDwR_LngvH4ROZdVwbjMtxKiZfIe2YhCSVaKtrxPNlwVgsmqLY_JwxgvORd11YgH5Fg1-dRVsSE_PsIV2_pv1MeEPvlhoXsMcY40IAwY_sH6kU5rFXofaEyw7V3_HTuafAJHv4yIFEK6CH5yENPykkLWScHHCU3q95h75m6h3lIYKeRJsENqM_Dr54IQqPXO-Ss2T4_IkQUX8fHNe0I-v33z6fQ9Ozt_9-H09Rkzqm0Sq7k0quuKBmXZ2daUFrgVquoKBbWxHKA1Rf4A4FJwtNK0ErAD2ZS8qrdSnZBXB91p3g7YGRxTAKen0A8QFu2h138jY3-hd36vhVjt5CorPLtRCP7rjDHpoY8GnYMR_Ry1bBUvalWKlSoPVJMdiQHt3RzB9RqpPkSqc6T6OlK9bvj0zw3vWm4zzAR1IMQMjTsM-tLPYcyu_U_2N2Aps1E</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2930473513</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Saw-box osteotomy versus reamer-box osteotomy in posterior stabilized total knee arthroplasty: a retrospective study of an average five year follow-up</title><source>Springer Nature</source><creator>Abdelbadie, Ahmed ; Toreih, Ahmed A. ; El-Adawy, Moawed F. ; Arafa, Mohamed S.</creator><creatorcontrib>Abdelbadie, Ahmed ; Toreih, Ahmed A. ; El-Adawy, Moawed F. ; Arafa, Mohamed S.</creatorcontrib><description>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
< 0.006).
Conclusion
The method of box cutting has an impact on the function and longevity of posterior stabilized primary knee implants. The risk of periprosthetic fractures can be reduced by proper patient selection, decreasing the box sizes, and development of more “controlled” box osteotomy instruments.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0341-2695</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1432-5195</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00264-024-06119-2</identifier><identifier>PMID: 38383764</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg</publisher><subject>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</subject><ispartof>International orthopaedics, 2024-05, Vol.48 (5), p.1209-1215</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2024</rights><rights>2024. The Author(s).</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c398t-702c3dd48e25df9c5fa0f136d43a7cf0aa9c4f13aa0210ef2c92aeda285067b23</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-0397-042X</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>230,314,780,784,885,27923,27924</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38383764$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Abdelbadie, Ahmed</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Toreih, Ahmed A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>El-Adawy, Moawed F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Arafa, Mohamed S.</creatorcontrib><title>Saw-box osteotomy versus reamer-box osteotomy in posterior stabilized total knee arthroplasty: a retrospective study of an average five year follow-up</title><title>International orthopaedics</title><addtitle>International Orthopaedics (SICOT)</addtitle><addtitle>Int Orthop</addtitle><description>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
< 0.006).
Conclusion
The method of box cutting has an impact on the function and longevity of posterior stabilized primary knee implants. The risk of periprosthetic fractures can be reduced by proper patient selection, decreasing the box sizes, and development of more “controlled” box osteotomy instruments.</description><subject>Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee - methods</subject><subject>Follow-Up Studies</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Knee Joint - surgery</subject><subject>Knee Prosthesis - adverse effects</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine & Public Health</subject><subject>Original Paper</subject><subject>Orthopedics</subject><subject>Osteoarthritis, Knee - surgery</subject><subject>Osteotomy - adverse effects</subject><subject>Osteotomy - methods</subject><subject>Periprosthetic Fractures - surgery</subject><subject>Range of Motion, Articular</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><issn>0341-2695</issn><issn>1432-5195</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9UctuFDEQtBARWQI_wAH5yMXgxzy5IBTxkiLlAJytXk97M8EzHmzPhuFHuPItfBmebBIBB2RZVruqq1tVhDwR_LngvH4ROZdVwbjMtxKiZfIe2YhCSVaKtrxPNlwVgsmqLY_JwxgvORd11YgH5Fg1-dRVsSE_PsIV2_pv1MeEPvlhoXsMcY40IAwY_sH6kU5rFXofaEyw7V3_HTuafAJHv4yIFEK6CH5yENPykkLWScHHCU3q95h75m6h3lIYKeRJsENqM_Dr54IQqPXO-Ss2T4_IkQUX8fHNe0I-v33z6fQ9Ozt_9-H09Rkzqm0Sq7k0quuKBmXZ2daUFrgVquoKBbWxHKA1Rf4A4FJwtNK0ErAD2ZS8qrdSnZBXB91p3g7YGRxTAKen0A8QFu2h138jY3-hd36vhVjt5CorPLtRCP7rjDHpoY8GnYMR_Ry1bBUvalWKlSoPVJMdiQHt3RzB9RqpPkSqc6T6OlK9bvj0zw3vWm4zzAR1IMQMjTsM-tLPYcyu_U_2N2Aps1E</recordid><startdate>20240501</startdate><enddate>20240501</enddate><creator>Abdelbadie, Ahmed</creator><creator>Toreih, Ahmed A.</creator><creator>El-Adawy, Moawed F.</creator><creator>Arafa, Mohamed S.</creator><general>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</general><scope>C6C</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0397-042X</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20240501</creationdate><title>Saw-box osteotomy versus reamer-box osteotomy in posterior stabilized total knee arthroplasty: a retrospective study of an average five year follow-up</title><author>Abdelbadie, Ahmed ; Toreih, Ahmed A. ; El-Adawy, Moawed F. ; Arafa, Mohamed S.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c398t-702c3dd48e25df9c5fa0f136d43a7cf0aa9c4f13aa0210ef2c92aeda285067b23</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><topic>Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee - methods</topic><topic>Follow-Up Studies</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Knee Joint - surgery</topic><topic>Knee Prosthesis - adverse effects</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine & Public Health</topic><topic>Original Paper</topic><topic>Orthopedics</topic><topic>Osteoarthritis, Knee - surgery</topic><topic>Osteotomy - adverse effects</topic><topic>Osteotomy - methods</topic><topic>Periprosthetic Fractures - surgery</topic><topic>Range of Motion, Articular</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Abdelbadie, Ahmed</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Toreih, Ahmed A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>El-Adawy, Moawed F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Arafa, Mohamed S.</creatorcontrib><collection>SpringerOpen</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>International orthopaedics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Abdelbadie, Ahmed</au><au>Toreih, Ahmed A.</au><au>El-Adawy, Moawed F.</au><au>Arafa, Mohamed S.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Saw-box osteotomy versus reamer-box osteotomy in posterior stabilized total knee arthroplasty: a retrospective study of an average five year follow-up</atitle><jtitle>International orthopaedics</jtitle><stitle>International Orthopaedics (SICOT)</stitle><addtitle>Int Orthop</addtitle><date>2024-05-01</date><risdate>2024</risdate><volume>48</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>1209</spage><epage>1215</epage><pages>1209-1215</pages><issn>0341-2695</issn><eissn>1432-5195</eissn><abstract>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
< 0.006).
Conclusion
The method of box cutting has an impact on the function and longevity of posterior stabilized primary knee implants. The risk of periprosthetic fractures can be reduced by proper patient selection, decreasing the box sizes, and development of more “controlled” box osteotomy instruments.</abstract><cop>Berlin/Heidelberg</cop><pub>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</pub><pmid>38383764</pmid><doi>10.1007/s00264-024-06119-2</doi><tpages>7</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0397-042X</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0341-2695 |
| ispartof | International orthopaedics, 2024-05, Vol.48 (5), p.1209-1215 |
| issn | 0341-2695 1432-5195 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_11001703 |
| source | Springer Nature |
| 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 |
| title | Saw-box osteotomy versus reamer-box osteotomy in posterior stabilized total knee arthroplasty: a retrospective study of an average five year follow-up |
| url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-08T18%3A18%3A59IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Saw-box%20osteotomy%20versus%20reamer-box%20osteotomy%20in%20posterior%20stabilized%20total%20knee%20arthroplasty:%20a%20retrospective%20study%20of%20an%20average%20five%C2%A0year%20follow-up&rft.jtitle=International%20orthopaedics&rft.au=Abdelbadie,%20Ahmed&rft.date=2024-05-01&rft.volume=48&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=1209&rft.epage=1215&rft.pages=1209-1215&rft.issn=0341-2695&rft.eissn=1432-5195&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00264-024-06119-2&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2930473513%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c398t-702c3dd48e25df9c5fa0f136d43a7cf0aa9c4f13aa0210ef2c92aeda285067b23%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2930473513&rft_id=info:pmid/38383764&rfr_iscdi=true |