Patellofemoral Joint Arthroplasty: Our Experience in Isolated Patellofemoral and Bicompartmental Arthritic Knees

Introduction Isolated patellofemoral (PF) arthritis is rare, and there is no complete agreement about the best surgical treatment. The operative treatments are total knee arthroplasty and patellofemoral replacement (PFR). The incidence of many early complications of PF arthroplasty has decreased with the introduction of newer designs. Nowadays, the main cause of revision surgery is the progression of tibiofemoral osteoarthritis. In the past, PF arthroplasty was contraindicated in patients with evidence of osteoarthritis or pain in medial or lateral tibiofemoral compartments. The improvement in implant designs and surgical techniques has allowed the addition of a monocompartmental arthroplasty for the medial or lateral tibiofemoral compartment. In this work, we evaluate our first experience with PF arthroplasty and its combination with unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Materials and Methods From May 2014 to March 2016, we treated 14 patients. An isolated PF arthroplasty was performed in six knees (five patients), and a combined PF and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty was performed in nine cases. We observed a significant improvement in the clinical and functional Knee Society Scores (KSSs) after surgery in our patients. Results We obtained good results in our cases both for clinical and functional KSSs. Patellar clunk was recorded in one case. Discussion and Conclusion We are going toward a new attitude in which partial osteoarthritic changes could be treated with partial resurfacing prosthetic solutions such as unicompartmental, bi–unicompartmental or PFR alone, or unicompartmental combined, which respects the cruciates and achieves maximal bone preservation, which is vital, particularly, for young patients.

Does the Kinematch® Prosthesis Impair Knee Flexion in Patients with Trochlear Dysplasia?

Background: Patellofemoral replacements are used to treat isolated patellofemoral arthritis in carefully selected patients. The Kinematch® custom-designed implant is placed directly on subchondral bone, leading critics of the device to believe that this results in overstuffing and limitation of flexion in cases of trochlear dysplasia; the current study aims to evaluate this premise.Methods: A retrospective analysis of a consecutive series of 24 patients (32 knees) was conducted. Trochlear dysplasia was evaluated using pre-operative axial CT scans, and knees were categorized as having minimal or moderate/severe dysplasia (moderate = flat trochlea, severe = convex trochlea). The primary outcome was post-operative knee flexion.Results: There was no statistical or clinical difference in post-operative knee flexion between the minimal (120°+12) and the moderate/severe dysplasia (117°+9) groups (p=.34). Conclusions: Use of the Kinematch® patient-specific custom trochlear component does not significantly limit flexion in cases of trochlear dysplasia, and although the surgeon has the ability to deepen the trochlea by way of the pre-operative model, this is not necessary. Keywords: Patellofemoral replacement; custom; flexion; trochlear dysplasiaLevel of Evidence: III, Case-control study