A matched-pair comparison of inlay and onlay trochlear designs for patellofemoral arthroplasty: no differences in clinical outcome but less progression of osteoarthritis with inlay designs

Feucht, Matthias J.; Cotic, Matthias; Beitzel, Knut; Baldini, Julia F.; Meidinger, Gebhart; Schöttle, Philip B.; Imhoff, Andreas B.

doi:10.1007/s00167-015-3733-2

Cited by 57 publications

(79 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Finally, Feucht et al in a Level III study compared the clinical and radiological outcomes between an inlay (HemiCAP ® Wave, Arthrosurface) and an onlay design component (Journey, Smith & Nephew). 21 This is the only comparative study that we found in the literature concerning the HemiCAP ® Wave prosthesis. The difference between follow-up subjective scores was found to be statistically insignificant between the two groups.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…Overall, almost all the authors (80%) agreed that the use of the HemiCAPWave ® prosthesis was clinically effective. 15 , 16 , 19 , 21 …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 19 A major drawback of the Level IV study by Laursen was the very small number of patients (18 patients), which compromises its scientific value. 20 Finally, the study by Feucht et al , despite its superior design (it was the only Level III comparative study), included again a rather small number of patients (15 inlay versus 15 onlay patients) All the aforementioned studies 15 , 16 , 19-21 were subjected to the expected for their design selection bias, while all apart from the last study 21 were subjected to performance and detection bias.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The clinical outcome of the different HemiCAP and UniCAP knee implants: A systematic and comprehensive review

Malahias¹,

Chytas²,

Thorey³

2018

Orthop Rev (Pavia)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The focal metallic cartilage resurfacing is a surgical method that offers an appropriate step between the biological techniques and arthroplasty in middle-aged patients with full-thickness cartilage defects. The advantages of this technique are that it addresses the defect, respects healthy tissues and provides stability and contoured surface similar to a full arthroplasty. A systematic review was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Two reviewers (MM and DC) independently conducted the search using the MEDLINE/PubMed database and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR). These databases were searched for the terms hemicap knee implant and unicap knee implant and knee focal metallic implant. From the initial 21 studies that were evaluated, 10 were eligible for analysis. Considering both the HemiCAP focal implant and the HemiCap® Wave patellofemoral prosthesis, we found a lack of mid- to long-term clinical outcomes in well-designed prospective clinical studies. No Level I or II studies were found, while the limited number of patients who were included undermines the overall clinical results of these studies. The progression of osteoarthritis, the persisting pain and the subsequent high revision or failure rates in the limited available studies with long-term follow-up, seem to be the major drawbacks of these partial resurfacing techniques. Utilization of partial resurfacing for femoral or patellofemoral compartments results in good short-term outcome for middle-aged patients as a step between biological technique and total knee arthroplasty. The surgeon should be cognizant and also notify the patient of the high failure rates that are reported in the literature in mid- to longterm follow-up and ultimately, the decision to perform partial resurfacing should be taken by both the patient and the orthopedic surgeon.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…Overall, almost all the authors (80%) agreed that the use of the HemiCAPWave ® prosthesis was clinically effective. 15 , 16 , 19 , 21 …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The clinical outcome of the different HemiCAP and UniCAP knee implants: A systematic and comprehensive review

Malahias¹,

Chytas²,

Thorey³

2018

Orthop Rev (Pavia)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…46 The new design increases implant stability, leads to less overstuffing of the patellofemoral joint, and has less patellofemoral mechanical complications, but these design improvements have not been clearly reflected in the current literature. 47 However, patients with the second-generation inlay designs have been found to be less likely to have progression of tibiofemoral arthritis at 26 months, suggesting that this design can lead to superior long-term outcomes. 47…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…47 However, patients with the second-generation inlay designs have been found to be less likely to have progression of tibiofemoral arthritis at 26 months, suggesting that this design can lead to superior long-term outcomes. 47…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%