title: [What influence do size and placement of patella resurfacing have on knee endoprosthesis?].
abstract: The aim of this study was to document the changes in retropatellar pressure, contact area and forces due to different sizes and placement of the patella resurfacing in knee arthroplasty. Six cadaver specimens (after Thiel fixation) were examined after the implantation of the total knee arthroplasty Genesis I. The patella sizes "small" and "medium" were placed as the "onlay" version, centered as well as off-centered by 0.4 cm in all four directions. Pressure and area measurements were done with Fuji pressure measuring film, which was placed between the patellar fascia of the femur and the patella in a defined position. The pressure was measured by applying a predetermined force for 5 s. The examinations were done with 60 degrees knee flexion and a force of 280 N. In our results there were no significant differences between, patella sizes. No significant differences for the medial, distal and proximal placement were found for the small patella. The lateral placement led to a significant decrease in the contact area (P = 0.0277), maximum pressure (P = 0.0422) and force (P = 0.0277). The average pressure did not change significantly (P = 0.1159). For the medium size patella there were no significant differences for medial or distal placement. The comparison of lateral and central placement revealed a significant decrease in the contact area (P = 0.0446). Comparing distal and proximal positioning, a significant increase in contact area and significant decrease in force were found (P = 0.0277 and P = 0.0277 respectively). In conclusion, the choice of small or medium patella resurfacing does not seem to have a significant influence. In comparison to the results without patella implants, the implantation of the small patella caused a significant decrease in the retropatellar contact area (P = 0.03) and force (P = 0.03). Average and maximum pressure did not change significantly (P = 0.6 and P = 0.35) even though pressure increased slightly. For the medium size, maximum pressure (P = 0.03) increased significantly and force decreased significantly (P = 0.0277) whereas contact area and average pressure increased slightly. The results of the different placements of the patella implant do not support the recommendation for a medial shift. However, at least the lateralized implantation led to a reduction of contact area and force as well as to a slight increase of pressure which is considered as unfavorable.
authors.affiliation: Klinik und Poliklinik für Allgemeine Orthopädie, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität, Albert-Schweitzer-Strasse 33, 48129 Münster. fuchssu@uni-muenster.de
authors.forename: S
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Fuchs
authors.forename: G
authors.initials: G
authors.lastname: Schütte
authors.forename: H
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: Witte
authors.forename: D
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Rosenbaum
mesh_terms: D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D005260:Female; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D006801:Humans; D007720:Knee Prosthesis; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D010329:Patella / Q000601:surgery*; D011183:Postoperative Complications / Q000503:physiopathology*; D011312:Pressure; D011474:Prosthesis Design; D017755:Prosthesis Fitting