Comparison of Revision Rates Due to Aseptic Loosening between High-Flex and Conventional Knee Prostheses
- Author:
Young Joon CHOI
1
;
Ki Won LEE
;
Jung Ki HA
;
Joo Yul BAE
;
Suk Kyu LEE
;
Sang Bum KIM
;
Dong Kyo SEO
Author Information
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords: Knee; Arthroplasty; Revision; Aseptic loosening; High-Flex prosthesis; Femoral component
- MeSH: Arthroplasty; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee; Follow-Up Studies; Knee Prosthesis; Knee; Prostheses and Implants; Survival Rate
- From:The Journal of Korean Knee Society 2018;30(2):161-166
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
- Abstract: PURPOSE: The purpose was to evaluate and compare the revision rate due to aseptic loosening between a high-flex prosthesis and a conventional prosthesis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two thousand seventy-eight knees (1,377 patients) with at least 2 years of follow-up after total knee arthroplasty were reviewed. Two types of implants were selected (LPS-Flex and LPS, Zimmer) to compare revision and survival rates and sites of loosened prosthesis component. RESULTS: The revision rate of the LPS-Flex (4.9%) was significantly higher than that of the conventional prosthesis (0.6%) (p<0.001). The 5-, 10-, and 15-year survival rates were 98.9%, 96.2% and 92.0%, respectively, for the LPS-Flex and 99.8%, 98.5% and 93.5%, respectively, for the LPS. The survival rate of the high-flex prosthesis was significantly lower than that of the conventional prosthesis, especially in the mid-term period (range, 5 to 10 years; p=0.002). The loosening rate of the femoral component was significantly higher in the LPS-Flex prosthesis (p=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The LPS-Flex had a higher revision rate due to aseptic loosening than the LPS prosthesis in the large population series with a long follow-up. The LPS-Flex should be used carefully considering the risk of femoral component aseptic loosening in the mid-term (range, 5 to 10 years) follow-up period after initial operation.
