Knee Surg Relat Res.  2018 Jun;30(2):161-166. 10.5792/ksrr.17.071.

Comparison of Revision Rates Due to Aseptic Loosening between High-Flex and Conventional Knee Prostheses

• Choi YJ
• Lee KW
• Ha JK
• Bae JY
• Lee SK
• Kim SB
• Seo DK

• KMID: 2413636
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.5792/ksrr.17.071

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.

Keyword

Knee; Arthroplasty; Revision; Aseptic loosening; High-Flex prosthesis; Femoral component

MeSH Terms

Arthroplasty
Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee
Follow-Up Studies
Knee Prosthesis*
Knee*
Prostheses and Implants
Survival Rate