Early outcomes of an anatomic trochlear-cutting patellofemoral arthroplasty: patient selection is key
- 19 Downloads
The purpose of this study was to report outcomes of a recent anatomic trochlear-cutting patellofemoral arthroplasty (PFA) system at > 3 years. The hypothesis was that its functional scores and revision rates would be at least equivalent to those reported for other ‘trochlear-cutting’ implants in the literature.
Twenty-eight consecutive patients that had received PFA using the same anatomic trochlear-cutting implant (KneeTech PFJ, Corin-Tornier, Montbonnot, France) with a dome-shaped patellar button and had systematic lateral facetectomy without lateral release were enrolled. Radiographic parameters collected pre-operatively included: trochlear dysplasia type and patellar height, TT–TG, patellar tilt and shape. Clinical scores collected pre-operatively and at > 3 years included: Oxford Knee Score (OKS) and Knee Society Score (KSS).
The initial cohort comprised 23 women (82%) and five men (18%), aged 63.3 ± 14.7 years, of which 23 had trochlear dysplasia (82%). One patient (4%) could not be reached, and three (11%) were revised to TKA due to arthritic progression, aged 77, 80 and 83 years at index operation, only one of which had trochlear dysplasia (type A). At final follow-up, none of the remaining 24 patients had complications; their OKS was 35.0 ± 10.3 and KSS symptoms and function were 19.8 ± 5.0 and 71.7 ± 13.6.
The anatomic trochlear-cutting PFA granted satisfactory scores and prevented mechanical complications, but the high incidence of early revisions, all due to spread of arthritis hence to improper patient selection. PFA should be restricted to patients with trochlear dysplasia, in whom arthritis was triggered by patellar instability and maltracking rather than degenerative or age-related diseases.
Retrospective case series, Level IV.
KeywordsPatellofemoral arthroplasty Patellofemoral arthritis PFA Trochlear dysplasia Patient selection
Total knee arthroplasty
Tibial tuberosity to trochlear groove distance
Oxford Knee Score
Knee Society Score
Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score
DD participated in study design, data collection and manuscript writing. MS participated in study design, literature review and manuscript writing. YM participated in data collection, literature review and manuscript editing. MP participated in data collection literature review and manuscript editing. JV participated in statistical analysis, literature review, and manuscript writing. LN participated in statistical analysis, table preparation and manuscript writing. GD participated in study design, data collection and manuscript editing. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
The authors received no funding for this study.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
Dr. Dejour received royalties from Tornier-Corin.
The ethical committee of the Clinique de la Sauvegarde approved the study protocol in advance.
All patients provided written informed consent for the use of their data and images for research and publishing purposes.
- 2.Bunyoz KI, Lustig S, Troelsen A (2018) Similar postoperative patient-reported outcome in both second generation patellofemoral arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty for treatment of isolated patellofemoral osteoarthritis: a systematic review. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-018-5151-8 Google Scholar
- 3.Caton J, Deschamps G, Chambat P, Lerat JL, Dejour H (1982) Patella infera. Apropos of 128 cases. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot 68(5):317–325Google Scholar
- 6.Dahm DL, Al-Rayashi W, Dajani K, Shah JP, Levy BA, Stuart MJ (2010) Patellofemoral arthroplasty versus total knee arthroplasty in patients with isolated patellofemoral osteoarthritis. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ) 39(10):487–491Google Scholar
- 9.Dejour D, Ferrua P, Ntagiopoulos PG, Radier C, Hulet C, Remy F, Chouteau J, Chotel F, Boisrenoult P, Sebilo A, Guilbert S, Bertin D, Ehkirch FP, Chassaing V (2013) The introduction of a new MRI index to evaluate sagittal patellofemoral engagement. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 99(8 Suppl):S391–S398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.Imhoff AB, Feucht MJ, Bartsch E, Cotic M, Pogorzelski J (2018) High patient satisfaction with significant improvement in knee function and pain relief after mid-term follow-up in patients with isolated patellofemoral inlay arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-018-5173-2 Google Scholar
- 13.Iwano T, Kurosawa H, Tokuyama H, Hoshikawa Y (1990) Roentgenographic and clinical findings of patellofemoral osteoarthrosis. With special reference to its relationship to femorotibial osteoarthrosis and etiologic factors. Clin Orthop Relat Res 252:190–197Google Scholar
- 17.Lonner JH (2017) Patellofemoral arthroplasty: an evolving science. Instr Course Lect 66:211–221Google Scholar
- 22.Odumenya M, McGuinness K, Achten J, Parsons N, Spalding T, Costa M (2011) The Warwick patellofemoral arthroplasty trial: a randomised clinical trial of total knee arthroplasty versus patellofemoral arthroplasty in patients with severe arthritis of the patellofemoral joint. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 12:265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 27.Reihs B, Reihs F, Labek G, Hochegger M, Leithner A, Bohler N, Sadoghi P (2018) No bias for developer publications and no difference between first-generation trochlear-resurfacing versus trochlear-cutting implants in 15,306 cases of patellofemoral joint arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 26(9):2809–2816CrossRefGoogle Scholar