Press Fit Condylar Total Knee Arthroplasty.
- Author:
Dae Kyung BAE
;
Dong Ki AHN
;
Shun Wook CHUNG
;
Jae Chul OK
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Total Knee Arthroplasty;
PFC;
Posterior Cruciate Ligament
- MeSH:
Arthroplasty*;
Follow-Up Studies;
Humans;
Knee Prosthesis;
Knee*;
Posterior Cruciate Ligament;
Postoperative Period
- From:Journal of the Korean Knee Society
1997;9(2):121-126
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
The PFC (Press Fit Condylar) knee was first implanted clinically in 1984 with retention of posterior cruciate ligament. Thereafter PFC modular version had been developed at 1988 with option of posterior cruciate ligament substitution and minor design changes. We classified the 170 patients, 252 knees which underwent the PFC total knee arthroplasty in the period from January 1988 to May 1995 into three groups. In group I, 62 patient. Had 93 total knee arthroplasties with insertion of the original PFC total knee prosthesis with retention of posterior cruciate ligament from January 1988 to October 1991. In group Iia, 51 patients had 74 total knee arthroplasties with insertion of the modular PFC total knee prosthesis with retention of posterior cruciate ligawient from November 1991 to May 1995. In group III, 57 patients had 85 total knee arthroplasties with insert.ion of the modular PFC total knee prosthesis with substitution of posterior cruciate ligament from November 1991 to May l995. Average follow-up periods were 7 years 5 months in group I and 3 years 2 months in group Iia and Ilb. Clinical and radiographic results were similar among the group I, Iia and llb except slight better scores in group Iia and Iib than group I, even though group IlI and IlI had short follow-up periods, Postoperative implant wear was developed at 5 knees in group I, 1 knee in group Iia and not developed in group Ilb. Implant loosening was developed at 1 knee only in group 1. Revisional arthroplasty was performed to 7 knees in group I, 1 knee in group Iia and not in group 1Ib. In conclusion, posterior cruciate ligament substitution group had no difference in functional results with the retention group. In the problem of implant wear, posterior cruciate ligament substitution group was superior to the retention group but similar in loosening.
