Clinical Evaluation of Geometric Knee Arthroplasty

Authors

  • Amnuay Unnanuntana The Orthopedic Department, Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
  • Charoen Chotigavanich The Orthopedic Department, Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand

Keywords:

Clinical evaluation, Geometric knee arthroplasty

Abstract

Geometric knee arthroplasties were done in seventy patients or eighty knees; sixty-two knees with osteoarthritis, fifteen knees with rheumatiod arthritis, the rest were gouty arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis and traumatic arthritis. Clinical study of these patients was made from five months to five years after the operation.

Using the criteria of evaluation as suggested by Hunter, seventy-four knees or 92% were rated as good, six knees or 8% were rated as bad. The results were similar to that reported by Coventry at Mayo Clinic. The subjective results were similar to the objective results. Relief of pain was the most gratifying result. There were no serious complications.

From this study, it is concluded that geometric knee arthroplasty in properly selected patients, is a worth-while operation to relieve pain and improve function in arthritic patients. A further study should be made on these patients when sufficient time has elapsed to determine the end results.

References

1. Campbell WC: Interposition of Vitallium Plates in Arthroplasties of the Knee: Preliminary Report. Am J Surg 47:639, 1940.

2. Apley AG: Arthroplasty of the Knee. In Modern Trends in Orthopedics, London, Butterworth and Co., Ltd, 1972.

3. Jones WN, Aufranc OE, and Kermond WL: Mould Arthroplasty of the Knee. J Bone Joint Surg 49A: 1022, 1967.

4. Deburge A, Aubriot JH, Genet IP, and the GUEPAR Group: Current Status of a Hinge Prosthesis (GUEPAR). Clin Orthop V 145:91-93, 1979.

5. Mc Keever DC: Tibial Plateau Prosthesis. Clin Orthop V 18:86, 1960.

6. Towley CO: Articular Plate Replacement Arthroplasty for the Knee. J Clin Orthop V 36:77-85, 1964.

7. Mac Intosh DL: Arthroplasty of the Knee. J Bone Joint Surg 48B:179, 1966.

8. Bryan RS and Peterson LF: The Quest for the Replacement Knee. Orthop Clin North Am 2:715, 1971.

9. Bryan RS, Peterson LF and Combs JJ: Polycentric Knee Arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 94:136, 1973.

10. Gunston FH: Polycentric Knee Arthroplasty: Prosthetic simulation of Normal Knee Movement. J Bone Joint Surg 53B:272, 1971.

11. Coventry MD, Finerman FAM, Reley LHT, Tumer RH and Up-shaw JE: A New Geometric Knee for Total Knee Arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 83:157,1972.

12. Coventry MD, Upshaw JE, Riley LH, Pinerman GAM and Turner RH: The Geometric Total Knee Arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 94:171,1973.

13. Hunter GA: Personal Communication.

14. Adishian DA and Coventry MB: 100 Mark III Geometric Total Knee Arthroplasties: A Clinical and Radiographic Study. Read at the Meeting of the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons, San Francisco, February 22 to 27, 1979.

15. Insall JN, Ranawat CS, Aglietti P and Shine J: A Comparison of Four Models of Total Knee Replacement Prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg 58A:754, 1976.

16. Coventry MB: Two-part Total Knee Arthroplasty: Evolution and Present Status. Clin Orthop 145:29-36, 1979.

Downloads

Published

1980-06-30

How to Cite

1.
Unnanuntana A, Chotigavanich C. Clinical Evaluation of Geometric Knee Arthroplasty. Thai J Surg [Internet]. 1980 Jun. 30 [cited 2024 Dec. 24];1(2):51-8. Available from: https://he02.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/ThaiJSurg/article/view/249123

Issue

Vol. 1 No. 2 (1980): April - June

Section

Case Reports

License

Articles must be contributed solely to The Thai Journal of Surgery and when published become the property of the Royal College of Surgeons of Thailand. The Royal College of Surgeons of Thailand reserves copyright on all published materials and such materials may not be reproduced in any form without the written permission.