Offer the NexGen LPS Flex mobile knee prosthesis advantages versus to the NexGen LPS? - A comparison of clinical and radiological results;Bietet das NexGen LPS Flex mobile-knieprothesen-system vorteile gegenüber dem NexGen LPS? - Ein vergleich klinischer und radiologischer ergebnisse

Zeitschrift fur Orthopadie und Ihre Grenzgebiete

Volumn 143, Issue 5, 2005, Pages 567-572

  Wohlrab, David ^a,b,f   Ditl, J ^a   Herrschelmann, R ^c   Schietsch, U ^d   Hein, W ^a   Hube, R ^e  

^a MARTIN LUTHER UNIVERSITY HALLE WITTENBERG   (Germany)

^b ALLEGHENY GENERAL HOSPITAL   (United States)

^c Fachkrankenhaus für Orthopädie ^*  (Germany)

^d UNIVERSITY OF GREIFSWALD   (Germany)

^e Orthopädische Chirurgie München Clinic   (Germany)

^f Allegheny Orthopaedic Associates   (United States)

Author keywords

Flexion; Mobile bearing; NexGen; Range of motion; TKA

Indexed keywords

PALACOS;

ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; IMPLANTATION; JOINT MOBILITY; KNEE INSTABILITY; KNEE PROSTHESIS; PAIN; PATELLA; SURGICAL APPROACH;

AGED; ARTHROPLASTY, REPLACEMENT, KNEE; EQUIPMENT FAILURE ANALYSIS; GERMANY; HUMANS; JOINT INSTABILITY; KNEE JOINT; KNEE PROSTHESIS; MALE; PROGNOSIS; RANGE OF MOTION, ARTICULAR; RECOVERY OF FUNCTION; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTORS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 27644472584     PISSN: 00443220     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1055/s-2005-836828     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. Scuderi GR, Scott WN, Tchejeyan GH. The Insall legacy in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 2001; 392: 3-14
2. Chew JT, Stewart NJ, Hanssen AD, Luo ZP, Rand JA, An KN. Differences in patellar tracking and knee kinematics among three different total knee designs. Clin Orthop 1997; 345: 87-98
3. Gejo R, Akizuki S, Takizawa T. Fixation of the NexGen HA-TCP-coated cementless, screwless total knee arthroplasty: comparison with conventional cementless total knee arthroplasty of the same type. J Arthroplasty 2002; 17: 449-456
4. Li G, Most E, Sultan PG, Schule S, Zayontz S, Park SE, Rubash HE. Knee kinematics with a high-flexion posterior stabilized total knee prosthesis: an in vitro robotic experimental investigation. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 2004; 86: 1721-1729
5. Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD, Scott WN. Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop 1989; 248: 13-14
6. Tanzer M, McLean CA, Laxer E, Casey J, Ahmed AM. Effect of femoral component designs on the contact and tracking characteristics of the unresurfaced patella in total knee arthroplasty. Can J Surg 2001; 44: 127-133
7. Conditt MA, Noble PC, Bertolusso R, Woody J, Parsley BS. The PCL significantly affects the functional outcome of total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2004; 19: 107-112
8. Ridgeway S, Moskal JT. Early instability with mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty: a series of 25 cases. J Arthroplasty 2004; 19: 686-693
9. Buechel FF. New Jersey low-contact-stress (LCS) knee replacement system. Clin Orthop 1991; 264: 309-311
10. Jordan LR, Olivo JL, Voorhorst PE. Survivorship analysis of cementless meniscal bearing total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 1997; 338: 119-123
11. Bert JM. Dislocation/subluxation of meniscal bearing elements after New Jersey low-contact stress total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 1990; 254: 211-215
12. Sanchez-Sotelo J, Ordonez JM, Prats SB. Results and complications of the low contact stress knee prosthesis. J Arthroplasty 1999; 14: 815-821
13. Ip D, Wu WC, Tsang WL. Early results of posterior-stabilised NexGen Legacy total knee arthroplasty. J Orthop Surg (Hongkong) 2003; 11: 38-42
14. Ranawat CS. Design may be counterproductive for optimizing flexion after TKR. Clin Orthop 2003; 416: 174-176