A retrospective comparison of central and posterior hinge joints in 53 total knee arthroplasties

The number of hinged total knee arthroplasty (HTKA) procedures is constantly increasing. There are two hinge types: central (CHTKA) and posterior (PHTKA). The primary purpose of the study was to compare implant survival in patients with CHTKA versus PHTKA. The secondary purpose was to analyse the ra...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Orthopaedics & traumatology, surgery & research surgery & research, 2021-05, Vol.107 (3), p.102868-102868, Article 102868
Hauptverfasser: Justo, Arthur, Vilette, Hugo, Ehlinger, Matthieu, Pasquier, Gilles, Laumonerie, Pierre, Cavaignac, Étienne
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 102868
container_issue 3
container_start_page 102868
container_title Orthopaedics & traumatology, surgery & research
container_volume 107
creator Justo, Arthur
Vilette, Hugo
Ehlinger, Matthieu
Pasquier, Gilles
Laumonerie, Pierre
Cavaignac, Étienne
description The number of hinged total knee arthroplasty (HTKA) procedures is constantly increasing. There are two hinge types: central (CHTKA) and posterior (PHTKA). The primary purpose of the study was to compare implant survival in patients with CHTKA versus PHTKA. The secondary purpose was to analyse the radiological and clinical results of the implants. There is no difference between the two groups. This study involved 53 patients who received a HTKA for either primary, trauma or revision surgery, of these 32 were in the CHTKA group and 21 in the PHTKA group, with a mean age of 69 years (38–89). The exclusion criteria were: etiology of sepsis, incomplete records and refusal to use data. The revision rate, with the replacement of prosthetic components, was the primary endpoint. The secondary outcomes were: mobility, complications, VAS, IKS, Devane, Charnley and Oxford knee scores, and radiological progression. The mean follow-up was 51 months (1–139). At 60 months, overall survival rate of the HTKA was 81%, with a confidence interval (CI) of 95% (71–93.2), and there was no difference between CHTKA and PHTKA, 77.7% (95% CI, 63.3–95.4) versus 85.7% (95% CI, 72–100), p=0.625, respectively. Flexion was 101°±15 (80–140) for CHTKA versus 98°±12 (30–130) for PHTKA, p=0.006. VAS was 0.5±16 (0–6) for CHTKA versus 1.6±14 (0–4) for PHTKA, p=0.000008. The IKS was 103±39 (15–180) for CHTKA versus 81±51 (9–200) for PHTKA, p=0.03. There were no differences in either radiological progression, complications or other functional scores. No significant difference was observed between the survival of CHTKA and PHTKA. CHTKA had better flexion, reduced VAS and increased IKS. Surgeons should be aware of these findings and apply careful consideration to their choice of hinge. IV; retrospective single-centre study.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.otsr.2021.102868
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2494276210</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S1877056821000803</els_id><sourcerecordid>2494276210</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c307t-d446336fe88e506bd38344414bbc013038f30fdf7787a48b2a63d9eb416e3c373</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kE1LAzEQhoMotn78AQ-So5fWfDWbgpdS_IKCFz3HbHbWpm6TNUkF_70preLJ0wzDMy8zD0IXlIwpofJ6NQ45xTEjjJYBU1IdoCFVVTUiE6kO__QDdJLSihApKWfHaMC55FJQMUSvMxwhx5B6sNl9ArZh3ZvoUvA4tNiCz9F02PgG9yFliC5EvHT-DfAqOJ8Tdh5POM4hF-zdA2AT8zKGvjMpO0hn6Kg1XYLzfT1FL3e3z_OH0eLp_nE-W4wsJ1UeNULIclULSsGEyLrhigtRTqxrSygnXLWctE1bVaoyQtXMSN5MoRZUAre84qfoapfbx_CxgZT12iULXWc8hE3STEwFqySjpKBsh9ryd4rQ6j66tYlfmhK9NatXemtWb83qndmydLnP39RraH5XflQW4GYHQPny00HUyTrwFhoXi1vdBPdf_jeghYp6</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2494276210</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A retrospective comparison of central and posterior hinge joints in 53 total knee arthroplasties</title><source>ScienceDirect Journals (5 years ago - present)</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><creator>Justo, Arthur ; Vilette, Hugo ; Ehlinger, Matthieu ; Pasquier, Gilles ; Laumonerie, Pierre ; Cavaignac, Étienne</creator><creatorcontrib>Justo, Arthur ; Vilette, Hugo ; Ehlinger, Matthieu ; Pasquier, Gilles ; Laumonerie, Pierre ; Cavaignac, Étienne</creatorcontrib><description>The number of hinged total knee arthroplasty (HTKA) procedures is constantly increasing. There are two hinge types: central (CHTKA) and posterior (PHTKA). The primary purpose of the study was to compare implant survival in patients with CHTKA versus PHTKA. The secondary purpose was to analyse the radiological and clinical results of the implants. There is no difference between the two groups. This study involved 53 patients who received a HTKA for either primary, trauma or revision surgery, of these 32 were in the CHTKA group and 21 in the PHTKA group, with a mean age of 69 years (38–89). The exclusion criteria were: etiology of sepsis, incomplete records and refusal to use data. The revision rate, with the replacement of prosthetic components, was the primary endpoint. The secondary outcomes were: mobility, complications, VAS, IKS, Devane, Charnley and Oxford knee scores, and radiological progression. The mean follow-up was 51 months (1–139). At 60 months, overall survival rate of the HTKA was 81%, with a confidence interval (CI) of 95% (71–93.2), and there was no difference between CHTKA and PHTKA, 77.7% (95% CI, 63.3–95.4) versus 85.7% (95% CI, 72–100), p=0.625, respectively. Flexion was 101°±15 (80–140) for CHTKA versus 98°±12 (30–130) for PHTKA, p=0.006. VAS was 0.5±16 (0–6) for CHTKA versus 1.6±14 (0–4) for PHTKA, p=0.000008. The IKS was 103±39 (15–180) for CHTKA versus 81±51 (9–200) for PHTKA, p=0.03. There were no differences in either radiological progression, complications or other functional scores. No significant difference was observed between the survival of CHTKA and PHTKA. CHTKA had better flexion, reduced VAS and increased IKS. Surgeons should be aware of these findings and apply careful consideration to their choice of hinge. IV; retrospective single-centre study.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1877-0568</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1877-0568</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.otsr.2021.102868</identifier><identifier>PMID: 33636414</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>France: Elsevier Masson SAS</publisher><subject>Central or posterior ; Hinge ; Survival ; Total knee arthroplasty</subject><ispartof>Orthopaedics &amp; traumatology, surgery &amp; research, 2021-05, Vol.107 (3), p.102868-102868, Article 102868</ispartof><rights>2021 Elsevier Masson SAS</rights><rights>Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c307t-d446336fe88e506bd38344414bbc013038f30fdf7787a48b2a63d9eb416e3c373</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-4341-5145</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2021.102868$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3548,27922,27923,45993</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33636414$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Justo, Arthur</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vilette, Hugo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ehlinger, Matthieu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pasquier, Gilles</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Laumonerie, Pierre</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cavaignac, Étienne</creatorcontrib><title>A retrospective comparison of central and posterior hinge joints in 53 total knee arthroplasties</title><title>Orthopaedics &amp; traumatology, surgery &amp; research</title><addtitle>Orthop Traumatol Surg Res</addtitle><description>The number of hinged total knee arthroplasty (HTKA) procedures is constantly increasing. There are two hinge types: central (CHTKA) and posterior (PHTKA). The primary purpose of the study was to compare implant survival in patients with CHTKA versus PHTKA. The secondary purpose was to analyse the radiological and clinical results of the implants. There is no difference between the two groups. This study involved 53 patients who received a HTKA for either primary, trauma or revision surgery, of these 32 were in the CHTKA group and 21 in the PHTKA group, with a mean age of 69 years (38–89). The exclusion criteria were: etiology of sepsis, incomplete records and refusal to use data. The revision rate, with the replacement of prosthetic components, was the primary endpoint. The secondary outcomes were: mobility, complications, VAS, IKS, Devane, Charnley and Oxford knee scores, and radiological progression. The mean follow-up was 51 months (1–139). At 60 months, overall survival rate of the HTKA was 81%, with a confidence interval (CI) of 95% (71–93.2), and there was no difference between CHTKA and PHTKA, 77.7% (95% CI, 63.3–95.4) versus 85.7% (95% CI, 72–100), p=0.625, respectively. Flexion was 101°±15 (80–140) for CHTKA versus 98°±12 (30–130) for PHTKA, p=0.006. VAS was 0.5±16 (0–6) for CHTKA versus 1.6±14 (0–4) for PHTKA, p=0.000008. The IKS was 103±39 (15–180) for CHTKA versus 81±51 (9–200) for PHTKA, p=0.03. There were no differences in either radiological progression, complications or other functional scores. No significant difference was observed between the survival of CHTKA and PHTKA. CHTKA had better flexion, reduced VAS and increased IKS. Surgeons should be aware of these findings and apply careful consideration to their choice of hinge. IV; retrospective single-centre study.</description><subject>Central or posterior</subject><subject>Hinge</subject><subject>Survival</subject><subject>Total knee arthroplasty</subject><issn>1877-0568</issn><issn>1877-0568</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kE1LAzEQhoMotn78AQ-So5fWfDWbgpdS_IKCFz3HbHbWpm6TNUkF_70preLJ0wzDMy8zD0IXlIwpofJ6NQ45xTEjjJYBU1IdoCFVVTUiE6kO__QDdJLSihApKWfHaMC55FJQMUSvMxwhx5B6sNl9ArZh3ZvoUvA4tNiCz9F02PgG9yFliC5EvHT-DfAqOJ8Tdh5POM4hF-zdA2AT8zKGvjMpO0hn6Kg1XYLzfT1FL3e3z_OH0eLp_nE-W4wsJ1UeNULIclULSsGEyLrhigtRTqxrSygnXLWctE1bVaoyQtXMSN5MoRZUAre84qfoapfbx_CxgZT12iULXWc8hE3STEwFqySjpKBsh9ryd4rQ6j66tYlfmhK9NatXemtWb83qndmydLnP39RraH5XflQW4GYHQPny00HUyTrwFhoXi1vdBPdf_jeghYp6</recordid><startdate>202105</startdate><enddate>202105</enddate><creator>Justo, Arthur</creator><creator>Vilette, Hugo</creator><creator>Ehlinger, Matthieu</creator><creator>Pasquier, Gilles</creator><creator>Laumonerie, Pierre</creator><creator>Cavaignac, Étienne</creator><general>Elsevier Masson SAS</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4341-5145</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202105</creationdate><title>A retrospective comparison of central and posterior hinge joints in 53 total knee arthroplasties</title><author>Justo, Arthur ; Vilette, Hugo ; Ehlinger, Matthieu ; Pasquier, Gilles ; Laumonerie, Pierre ; Cavaignac, Étienne</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c307t-d446336fe88e506bd38344414bbc013038f30fdf7787a48b2a63d9eb416e3c373</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Central or posterior</topic><topic>Hinge</topic><topic>Survival</topic><topic>Total knee arthroplasty</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Justo, Arthur</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vilette, Hugo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ehlinger, Matthieu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pasquier, Gilles</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Laumonerie, Pierre</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cavaignac, Étienne</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Orthopaedics &amp; traumatology, surgery &amp; research</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Justo, Arthur</au><au>Vilette, Hugo</au><au>Ehlinger, Matthieu</au><au>Pasquier, Gilles</au><au>Laumonerie, Pierre</au><au>Cavaignac, Étienne</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A retrospective comparison of central and posterior hinge joints in 53 total knee arthroplasties</atitle><jtitle>Orthopaedics &amp; traumatology, surgery &amp; research</jtitle><addtitle>Orthop Traumatol Surg Res</addtitle><date>2021-05</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>107</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>102868</spage><epage>102868</epage><pages>102868-102868</pages><artnum>102868</artnum><issn>1877-0568</issn><eissn>1877-0568</eissn><abstract>The number of hinged total knee arthroplasty (HTKA) procedures is constantly increasing. There are two hinge types: central (CHTKA) and posterior (PHTKA). The primary purpose of the study was to compare implant survival in patients with CHTKA versus PHTKA. The secondary purpose was to analyse the radiological and clinical results of the implants. There is no difference between the two groups. This study involved 53 patients who received a HTKA for either primary, trauma or revision surgery, of these 32 were in the CHTKA group and 21 in the PHTKA group, with a mean age of 69 years (38–89). The exclusion criteria were: etiology of sepsis, incomplete records and refusal to use data. The revision rate, with the replacement of prosthetic components, was the primary endpoint. The secondary outcomes were: mobility, complications, VAS, IKS, Devane, Charnley and Oxford knee scores, and radiological progression. The mean follow-up was 51 months (1–139). At 60 months, overall survival rate of the HTKA was 81%, with a confidence interval (CI) of 95% (71–93.2), and there was no difference between CHTKA and PHTKA, 77.7% (95% CI, 63.3–95.4) versus 85.7% (95% CI, 72–100), p=0.625, respectively. Flexion was 101°±15 (80–140) for CHTKA versus 98°±12 (30–130) for PHTKA, p=0.006. VAS was 0.5±16 (0–6) for CHTKA versus 1.6±14 (0–4) for PHTKA, p=0.000008. The IKS was 103±39 (15–180) for CHTKA versus 81±51 (9–200) for PHTKA, p=0.03. There were no differences in either radiological progression, complications or other functional scores. No significant difference was observed between the survival of CHTKA and PHTKA. CHTKA had better flexion, reduced VAS and increased IKS. Surgeons should be aware of these findings and apply careful consideration to their choice of hinge. IV; retrospective single-centre study.</abstract><cop>France</cop><pub>Elsevier Masson SAS</pub><pmid>33636414</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.otsr.2021.102868</doi><tpages>1</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4341-5145</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1877-0568
ispartof Orthopaedics & traumatology, surgery & research, 2021-05, Vol.107 (3), p.102868-102868, Article 102868
issn 1877-0568
1877-0568
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2494276210
source ScienceDirect Journals (5 years ago - present); EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals
subjects Central or posterior
Hinge
Survival
Total knee arthroplasty
title A retrospective comparison of central and posterior hinge joints in 53 total knee arthroplasties
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-13T18%3A56%3A03IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20retrospective%20comparison%20of%20central%20and%20posterior%20hinge%20joints%20in%2053%20total%20knee%20arthroplasties&rft.jtitle=Orthopaedics%20&%20traumatology,%20surgery%20&%20research&rft.au=Justo,%20Arthur&rft.date=2021-05&rft.volume=107&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=102868&rft.epage=102868&rft.pages=102868-102868&rft.artnum=102868&rft.issn=1877-0568&rft.eissn=1877-0568&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.otsr.2021.102868&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2494276210%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2494276210&rft_id=info:pmid/33636414&rft_els_id=S1877056821000803&rfr_iscdi=true