Home > Journals > Minerva Ortopedica e Traumatologica > Past Issues > Minerva Ortopedica e Traumatologica 2006 December;57(6) > Minerva Ortopedica e Traumatologica 2006 December;57(6):473-82





A Journal on Orthopedics and Traumatology

Official Journal of the Piedmontese-Ligurian-Lombard Society of Orthopedics and Traumatology
Indexed/Abtracted in: EMBASE, Scopus, Emerging Sources Citation Index




Minerva Ortopedica e Traumatologica 2006 December;57(6):473-82

language: Italian

Posterior stabilized total knee arthroplasty: survival and function analysis of 6 years follow-up results

Fortina M., Carta S., Crainz E., Del Vecchio E., Urgelli S., Ferrata P.

U.O.C. Ortopedia Protesica Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Senese, Siena


Aim. The aim of the study was to evaluate function and survival of a total knee prosthesis with posterior stabilization and patellar remodelling.
Methods. In this prospective study, 118 patients (126 knee prostheses) underwent clinical and radiographic evaluation at 1 month, 6 months and each year thereafter according to the Knee Society criteria and the activity classes of the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA). Prosthesis survival was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method.
Results. At a mean follow-up of 45 months (range, 16-76), outcome was excellent in 95.8% of cases. The mean Knee Society Score (KKS) for pain was 94.6 (range, 60-100); the mean KKS functional score was 83.2 (range, 65-90). None of the patients referred experiencing patellar pain or other femoropatellar complications. The mean flexion was 112° (range, 100°-125°); the mean UCLA score was 6.7. Two revisions for aseptic mobilization were performed. The cumulative 6-year survival was 98.3%.
Conclusions. These results are in line with the best published studies. The postoperative degree of activity influences prosthesis survival, however, few studies describe this aspect in detail. Given the complex kinematics of knee prostheses, future studies will need to give a fuller description of the technical specifications of the implant so that the outcomes achieved with other devices can be compared.

top of page

Publication History

Cite this article as

Corresponding author e-mail