Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
BackgroundDespite debate over the role of patellar resurfacing in total knee arthroplasty, many surgeons feel it decreases re‐operation rates and anterior pain, and an increasing number are adopting resurfacing. This study compares intra‐operative characteristics of different patellar implants to assist surgeons in gaining better understanding of these implants.MethodsThe three most commonly used patellar implants (inset, onlay round and onlay oval) were allocated randomly to 120 patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty. We compared the groups in terms of implant size, bone coverage, lateral underhang (uncovered lateral facet) and need for partial lateral facetectomy. We also compared the patient‐reported outcome measures between the groups at 6 months post‐operatively.ResultsThe inset, onlay round and onlay oval designs had bone coverage of 48.5%, 65.9% and 85.9%, respectively (P < 0.01). Similarly, the onlay‐oval implant was found to have the smallest lateral underhang of all three designs (inset 11.6 mm; onlay round 6.9 mm, onlay oval 1.6 mm, P < 0.01). The onlay‐oval design was the largest implant with a median size of 35 mm, compared to 23 mm for the inset and 32 mm for the onlay round (P < 0.01). In addition, patellae using onlay‐oval implants required significantly fewer lateral facetectomies due to improved bone coverage (inset 95%; onlay round 87%; onlay oval 3%; P < 0.01). Finally, comparison of patient‐reported outcome measures between the groups showed no difference at an early assessment of 6 months.ConclusionOnlay‐oval design allows for the use of a larger implant, improving bone coverage and reducing the need for partial lateral facetectomy; however, early assessment of outcomes shows no difference between the three designs.
BackgroundDespite debate over the role of patellar resurfacing in total knee arthroplasty, many surgeons feel it decreases re‐operation rates and anterior pain, and an increasing number are adopting resurfacing. This study compares intra‐operative characteristics of different patellar implants to assist surgeons in gaining better understanding of these implants.MethodsThe three most commonly used patellar implants (inset, onlay round and onlay oval) were allocated randomly to 120 patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty. We compared the groups in terms of implant size, bone coverage, lateral underhang (uncovered lateral facet) and need for partial lateral facetectomy. We also compared the patient‐reported outcome measures between the groups at 6 months post‐operatively.ResultsThe inset, onlay round and onlay oval designs had bone coverage of 48.5%, 65.9% and 85.9%, respectively (P < 0.01). Similarly, the onlay‐oval implant was found to have the smallest lateral underhang of all three designs (inset 11.6 mm; onlay round 6.9 mm, onlay oval 1.6 mm, P < 0.01). The onlay‐oval design was the largest implant with a median size of 35 mm, compared to 23 mm for the inset and 32 mm for the onlay round (P < 0.01). In addition, patellae using onlay‐oval implants required significantly fewer lateral facetectomies due to improved bone coverage (inset 95%; onlay round 87%; onlay oval 3%; P < 0.01). Finally, comparison of patient‐reported outcome measures between the groups showed no difference at an early assessment of 6 months.ConclusionOnlay‐oval design allows for the use of a larger implant, improving bone coverage and reducing the need for partial lateral facetectomy; however, early assessment of outcomes shows no difference between the three designs.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.