Treatment of patello-femoral arthritis using the Lubinus patello-femoral arthroplasty: A retrospective review

Design, operative technique and ten-year results of the Hermes™ patellofemoral arthroplasty

“…However, polyethylene wear and trochlear loosening were some problems, perhaps due to the deep groove in the trochlear component, which has the aim of constraining the V-shaped polyethylene patellar button. Similar problems were also reported after seven years with the Lubinus prosthesis [17,23,24], which is also sculpted into the trochlea. More recently, the Bristol Knee Group [1] reported a 96 % five-year survivorship of the first 100 Avon patello-femoral arthroplasties, with excellent pain relief, although inevitably some problems have been noted perhaps because the design resects a variable amount from the notch and has a symmetrical design.…”

“…The first total patellofemoral replacements [3,11,12,20,23] had a resurfacing design on the trochlea and malalignment was the most frequent cause of failure affecting 24 % of cases (range 15-40 % according to these series). These patella maltracking results [11] were considerably worse than the patella results of a primary total knee arthroplasty where the orientation of the femoral component is given by the cut.…”

Strain shielding in distal femur after patellofemoral arthroplasty under different activity conditions

“…However some retrospective studies analyzing clinical outcomes after patellofemoral replacement at different follow-up examinations were taken into account. In addition to the previously mentioned failures, early-generation implants, in particular, had a relatively high tendency for failures directly related to patellar maltracking (Arciero and Toomey, 1988;Board et al, 2004;Lonner, 2004;Smith et al, 2002;Tauro et al, 2001). Hendrix et al (2008) did a revision study of these outcomes and concluded that, although many of these failures have been attributed to component malposition or soft tissue imbalance, the likelihood is that many of these were, in fact, hastened by particular design features of the trochlear components, putting the patella at risk for catching, snapping, and subluxation on its proximal and lateral edges.…”

“…Typical failure mechanisms of patellofemoral arthroplasty include patellar maltracking and progressive femorotibial arthritis. Failure, wear and loosening of the trochlear component have been reported (Arciero and Toomey, 1988;Argenson et al, 2005;Blazina et al, 1979;Board et al, 2004;Cartier et al, 1990Cartier et al, , 2005de Winter et al, 2001;Kooijman et al, 2003;Krajca-Radcliffe and Coker, 1996;Leadbetter et al, 2008;Lonner, 2004;Smith et al 2002;Tauro et al, 2001). The implant-related bone loss occurs mainly as a result of strain shielding and wear, increasing the risk of periprosthetic fracture or weakness of the implant fixation, which leads to implant loosening (van Loon et al, 1999).…”

Association and impact of patellofemoral dysplasia on patellofemoral arthropathy and arthroplasty

“…It is postulated that patellofemoral dysplasia caused partly by trochlear dysplasia is responsible for lateral facet overloading and eventual isolated patellofemoral arthritis [4][5][6][7]. Furthermore, relatively higher complication rates have been seen with arthroplasty for isolated patellofemoral knee arthritis [8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15]. These complications comprise a high rate of patellofemoral instability and knee stiffness and are seen both in partial and total knee replacement for this condition [16][17][18][19].…”