Patellar prosthesis positioning in total knee arthroplasty

Patellar prosthesis positioning in 40 primary total knee replacements was evaluated with regard to (1) patellar tilt, (2) angle between the patellar component and patellar bony remnant, (3) lateral versus medial placement, (4) patellar height, and (5) size of the patellar component versus patellar length. Two different designs were evaluated. Twenty knees that were resurfaced with a patellar button prosthesis and implanted with conventional surgical technique constituted Group A. Twenty knees that were resurfaced with a new biconvex prosthesis and implanted with specially designed instrumentation constituted Group B. For Group A, the patellar tilt averaged 4.25" preoperative and 8.35" postoperative. For Group B the patellar tilt averaged 4.60" preoperative and 1.83" postoperative. In Group B, there was significant improvement in patellar position, with only two patients showing values exceeding the neutral range (p = 0.0409). The angle between the patellar component and the bony remnant in Group A averaged 5.975", and in Group B, 1.447". Two patients in Group A and 18 patients in Group B had values in the normal range for patellar tilt and the angle between the prosthesis and the bone. The prosthesis was inserted medial to the patellar center in six

[1]  M. Clayton,et al.  Patellar complications after total condylar arthroplasty. , 1982, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[2]  T. Thornhill,et al.  Press-fit condylar total knee replacement. , 1989, The Orthopedic clinics of North America.

[3]  K. Heiple,et al.  The influence of tibial-patellofemoral location on function of the knee in patients with the posterior stabilized condylar knee prosthesis. , 1986, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[4]  N. Fredensborg,et al.  Lateral dislocation of the patella following Marmor and Guepar arthroplasty of the knee. , 1978, Acta orthopaedica Scandinavica.

[5]  C. Ranawat,et al.  The patellofemoral joint in total condylar knee arthroplasty. Pros and cons based on five- to ten-year follow-up observations. , 1986, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[6]  M. Roffman,et al.  Fracture of the resurfaced patella in total knee replacement. , 1980, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[7]  J. Insall,et al.  The total condylar knee prosthesis in gonarthrosis. A five to nine-year follow-up of the first one hundred consecutive replacements. , 1983, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[8]  P S Walker,et al.  A new patella prosthesis. Design and application. , 1975, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[9]  D. Lennox,et al.  Revision total knee arthroplasty for aseptic failure. , 1988, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[10]  L. Dorr,et al.  Technical considerations in total knee arthroplasty. , 1986, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[11]  H. Labelle,et al.  The abnormal lateral patellofemoral angle: a diagnostic roentgenographic sign of recurrent patellar subluxation. , 1978, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[12]  C. Bünger,et al.  Patellofemoral function in total condylar knee arthroplasty , 2004, International Orthopaedics.

[13]  J. Insall,et al.  Patellar dislocation following total knee replacement. , 1985, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[14]  R. Rose,et al.  Structure and function of the human patella: the role of cancellous bone. , 1976, Journal of Biomedical Materials Research.

[15]  D. Schurman,et al.  Patellar complications following total knee arthroplasty. , 1979, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.