Insall–Salvati ratio stabilizes one year after mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty and does not correlate with mid-to-long-term clinical outcomes
- 53 Downloads
It has not been established whether changes in the length of the patellar tendon (LPT) after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) affect clinical outcomes. Therefore, this prospective cohort study aimed to evaluate changes in the LPT over time postoperatively and clarify their impact on clinical outcomes after bilateral TKA, performed with differently designed mobile-bearing (meniscal-bearing and rotating-platform) implants on contralateral knees.
51 patients who required staged bilateral mobile-bearing TKA were recruited. LPT was evaluated by measuring the Insall–Salvati ratio (ISR) preoperatively and at 1 week, 6 months, and 1, 2, and ≥ 5 years postoperatively. Hospital for Special Surgery score and range of motion were assessed at the final follow-up.
Based on the ISR, there were no differences in the patterns of change between the two types of implant (n.s.). At the 6-month follow-up, the ISRs of both implants had significantly decreased (p = 0.002). Throughout the follow-up, the ISR was significantly lower (p < 0.001) for the meniscal-bearing knees than for the rotating-platform knees. After the 1-year follow-up, there were no further substantial changes in the ISR in either group. There was also no significant correlation between the ISR and clinical outcomes.
LPT decreased after both mobile-bearing TKAs for up to 1 year postoperatively, although the decrease was more significant for the meniscal-bearing knees than the rotating-platform knees. After 1 year postoperatively, however, these conditions had stabilized, with no further changes. Thus, LPT plays a minimal role in mid-to-long-term clinical outcomes after TKA.
Level of evidence
Therapeutic prospective study, Level II.
KeywordsMobile-bearing TKA Patellar tendon length Insall–Salvati ratio Hospital for Special Surgery score Range of motion
We thank Nancy Schatken, BS, MT (ASCP), from Edanz Group (http://www.edanzediting.com/ac), for editing a draft of this manuscript.
No external funding was used.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
All authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 1.Alicea J (2001) Scoring systems and their validation for the arthritic knee. In: Insall JN, Scott WN (eds) Surgery of the knee, vol 2, 3rd edn. Churchill Livingstone, New York, pp 1507–1515Google Scholar
- 4.Buechel FF (1994) Meniscal bearing knee replacement: development, long-term results, and future technology. In: Scott WN (ed) The knee, vol 2. Mosby-Year Book, St. Louis, pp 1157–1177Google Scholar
- 9.Ewald FC (1989) The Knee Society total knee arthroplasty roentgenographic evaluation and scoring system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 248:9–12Google Scholar
- 12.Ishii Y, Noguchi H, Sato J, Yamamoto T, Takayama S, Toyabe SI (2017) Comparison of long-term clinical outcomes after bilateral mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasties using PCL-retaining and PCL-substituting implants in the same patients. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 25:3711–3717CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 17.Lewandowski PJ, Askew MJ, Lin DF, Hurst FW, Melby A (1997) Kinematics of posterior cruciate ligament-retaining and -sacrificing mobile bearing total knee arthroplasties. An in vitro comparison of the New Jersey LCS meniscal bearing and rotating platform prostheses. J Arthroplasty 12:777–784CrossRefGoogle Scholar