Abstract

BackgroundNon-optimal patellofemoral relationships may influence treatment decisions during revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA). We performed this study to determine whether patellar implant malposition or patellar tilt is associated with inferior patient-reported outcome scores or patient satisfaction after primary TKA. MethodsWe identified 396 TKA patients (439 knees) from an institutional registry who had undergone patellar resurfacing, with preoperative and 6-week postoperative radiographs available, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) completed at least 1 year after surgery (mean 505 days). Preoperative patient demographic characteristics, patient-reported expectations, National Institutes of Health - Patient Reported Outcomes Measurements Instrument Systems global health, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacement, and University of California Los Angeles activity scores were compared between 60 TKAs performed with non-optimal patellofemoral relationships (36 patellar implant malposition, 24 patellar tilt) and 379 TKAs performed with optimal patellar implant placement. ResultsThere were no differences between the 2 cohorts regarding demographic features, preoperative radiographic disease severity, expectations, and PROMs; or postoperative tibiofemoral component alignment, PROMs, and patient-reported satisfaction (P = .48). Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacement improved similarly (P = .62) for patients with optimal resurfacing (48.5-77.6 points) and non-optimal resurfacing (47.7-76.6 points). A similar proportion of optimal and suboptimal resurfaced patients reported being satisfied with their TKA (92.7% vs 88.1%, P = .29). ConclusionAlthough suboptimal patellofemoral relationships may prompt treatment considerations during revision TKA, the data obtained from this study do not suggest that patellar implant malposition or patellar tilt independently contribute to postoperative pain, functional limitation, or dissatisfaction. Level of EvidenceThis is a level III, retrospective cohort study.

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.