Advertisement

International Orthopaedics

, Volume 42, Issue 4, pp 799–804 | Cite as

Results with eight and a half years average follow-up on two hundred and eight e-Motion FP® knee prostheses, fitted using computer navigation for knee osteoarthritis in patients with over ten degrees genu varum

  • Dominique Saragaglia
  • Loic Sigwalt
  • Julia Gaillot
  • Vincent Morin
  • Brice Rubens-Duval
  • Régis Pailhé
Original Paper

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study was to analyse the clinical and radiographic results of 208 e-Motion® posterior cruciate-retaining, mobile bearing prostheses (BBraun-Aesculap, Tuttlingen, Germany) fitted using computer navigation, for knee osteoarthritis with a genu varum greater than 10°.

Methods

One hundred ninety-two patients were operated on with 208 e-Motion® prostheses fitted, between January 2006 and December 2011, using the OrthoPilot® computer navigation system. Average pre-operative IKS score was 70 ± 27 points (6-143) with a function score of 38 ± 20.5 (0-90) and a knee score of 32.5 ± 13 (0-63). Average flexion was 116.5° ± 13° (65-140°). Average pre-operative HKA angle was 166° ± 3° (154-169°).

Results

2Results are available for 134 patients, with a total of 150 knees operated on (38 lost to follow-up and 20 deceased). Average follow-up was 104.5 months (60-116 months). On last follow-up, the average IKS was 180 ± 22 points (95-200) with 86.5 ± 16 points (25-100) for the function score and 93.5 ± 8 points (55-100) for the knee score. Knee flexion was 116° ± 10.5° (80-135°) and average HKA angle was 179° ± 2° (175-184°). The pre-operative objective was achieved in 90.5% of knees.

Conclusion

The e-Motion® mobile bearing posterior cruciate-retaining prosthesis, fitted using computer navigation, offers excellent results after an average of 8.5 years follow-up. These results are at least equivalent, even superior, to those of the posterior-stabilised prostheses usually used for this type of deformity.

Keywords

Knee Osteoarthritis Severe genu varum Total knee arthroplasty Computer-assisted Navigation 

Notes

Funding

There is no funding source.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest related to this article. D. Saragaglia receives royalties from BBraun related to the e-Motion Knee Prosthesis. The other authors had, sometimes, financial support for attending orthopaedic meetings.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Haute Autorité de Santé (2012) Implants articulaires du genou. Révision de catégories homogènes de dispositifs médicaux. http://www.has-sante.fr/portail/jcms/c_1345397/fr/implants-articulaires-de-genou
  2. 2.
    Insall JN, Hood RW, Flawn LB, Sullivan DJ (1983) The total condylar knee prosthesis in gonarthrosis. A five to nine-year follow-up of the first one hundred consecutive replacements. J Bone Joint Surg Am 65:619–628CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sharkey PF, Hozack WJ, Rothman RH, Shastri S, Jacoby SM (2002) Insall award paper. Why are total knee arthroplasties failing today? Clin Orthop 404:7–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Teeny SM, Krackow KA, Hungerford DS, Jones M (1991) Primary total knee arthroplasty in patients with severe varus deformity. A comparative study. Clin Orthop 273:19–31Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Laskin RS (1996) The Insall award. Total knee replacement with posterior cruciate ligament retention in patients with a fixed varus deformity. Clin Orthop 331:29–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Saragaglia D, Picard F, Chaussard C et al (2001) Computer-assisted knee arthroplasty: comparison with a conventional procedure. Results of 50 cases in a prospective randomized study. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot 87:18–28PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jenny JY, Boeri C (2001) Computer-assisted implantation of a total knee arthroplasty: a case-controlled study in comparison with classical instrumentation. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot 87:645–652PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hart R, Janecek M, Chaker A, Bucek P (2003) Total knee arthroplasty implanted with and without kinematic navigation. Int Orthop 27:366–369.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-003-0501-6 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bejek Z, Sólyom L, Szendrõi M (2007) Experiences with computer navigated total knee arthroplasty. Int Orthop 31:617–622.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-006-0254-0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Saragaglia D (2009) Computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty: 12 years experience in Grenoble. Emém Acad Nat Chir 8:53–58Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ewald FC (1989) The knee society total knee arthroplasty roentgenographic evaluation and scoring system. Clin Orthop 248:9–12Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Saragaglia D, Roberts J (2005) Navigated osteotomies around the knee in 170 patients with osteoarthritis secondary to genu varum. Orthopedics 28(Suppl 10):S1269–S1274PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lee S-Y, Yang J-H, Lee Y-I, Yoon J-R (2016) A novel medial soft tissue release method for Varus deformity during total knee arthroplasty: femoral origin release of the medial collateral ligament. Knee Surg Relat Res 28:153–160.  https://doi.org/10.5792/ksrr.2016.28.2.153 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mullaji AB, Shetty GM (2013) Surgical technique: computer-assisted sliding medial condylar osteotomy to achieve gap balance in varus knees during TKA. Clin Orthop 471:1484–1491.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-012-2773-x CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Verdonk PC, Pernin J, Pinaroli A, Ait Si Selmi T, Neyret P (2009) Soft tissue balancing in varus total knee arthroplasty: an algorithmic approach. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 17:660–666.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-009-0755-715 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sim JA, Lee YS, Kwak JH, Yang SH, Kim KH, Lee BK (2013) Comparison of complete distal release of the medial collateral ligament and medial epicondylar osteotomy during ligament balancing in varus knee total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Surg 5:287–291.  https://doi.org/10.4055/cios.2013.5.4.287 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cho W-S, Byun S-E, Lee S-J, Yoon J (2015) Laxity after complete release of the medial collateral ligament in primary total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 23:1816–1823.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-014-3288-7 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Koh HS, In Y (2013) Semimembranosus release as the second step of soft tissue balancing in varus total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 28:273–278.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2012.06.024 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Saragaglia D, Chaussard C, Rubens-Duval B (2006) Navigation as a predictor of soft tissue release during 90 cases of computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty. Orthopedics 29:S137–S138PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bellemans J (2011) Multiple needle puncturing: balancing the varus knee. Orthopedics 34:e510–e512.  https://doi.org/10.3928/01477447-20110714-48 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Meneghini RM, Daluga AT, Sturgis LA, Lieberman JR (2013) Is the pie-crusting technique safe for MCL release in varus deformity correction in total knee arthroplasty? J Arthroplast 28:1306–1309.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2013.04.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Saragaglia D, Picard F (2004) Computer-assisted implantation of total knee endoprosthesis with no preoperative imaging: the kinematic model. In: Navigation and robotics in total joint and spine surgery. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, p 226–233Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Whiteside LA (1995) Ligament release and bone grafting in total arthroplasty of the varus knee. Orthopedics 18:117–123.  https://doi.org/10.3928/0147-7447-19950201-09 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Berger RA, Crossett LS, Jacobs JJ, Rubash HE (1998) Malrotation causing patellofemoral complications after total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 356:144–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Matsuda S, Miura H, Nagamine R, Urabe K, Hirata G, Iwamoto Y (2001) Effect of femoral and tibial component position on patellar tracking following total knee arthroplasty: 10-year follow-up of Miller-Galante I knees. Am J Knee Surg 14:152–156PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Petersen W, Rembitzki IV, Brüggemann GP, Ellermann A, Best R, Koppenburg AG, Liebau C (2014) Anterior knee pain after total knee arthroplasty: a narrative review. Int Orthop 38:319–328.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-013-2081-4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Parratte S, Pagnano MW, Trousdale RT, Berry DJ (2010) Effect of postoperative mechanical axis alignment on the fifteen-year survival of modern, cemented total knee replacements. J Bone Joint Surg Am 92:2143–2149.  https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.I.01398 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ritter MA, Davis KE, Meding JB, Pierson JL, Berend ME, Malinzak RA (2011) The effect of alignment and BMI on failure of total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 93:1588–1596.  https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.J.00772 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kubiak P, Archibeck MJ, White RE (2008) Cruciate-retaining total knee arthroplasty in patients with at least fifteen degrees of coronal plane deformity. J Arthroplast 23:366–370.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2007.01.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Seon JK, Song EK (2006) Navigation-assisted less invasive total knee arthroplasty compared with conventional total knee arthroplasty: a randomized prospective trial. J Arthroplast 21:777–782CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© SICOT aisbl 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Sport TraumatologyGrenoble South Teaching HospitalÉchirollesFrance

Personalised recommendations