Skip to main content

Table 2 Patient demographics by implant type. SD, standard deviation; OA, osteoarthritis; PS, posterior stabilized; CR, cruciate retaining; the percentages totalled > 100% because some knees had more than one reason for revision recorded

From: Comparative retrieval analysis of a novel anatomic tibial tray backside: alterations in tibial component design and surface coating can increase cement adhesions and surface roughness

Design, type Gender (F:M) Age at revision, mean and SD (yrs) Time to revision, mean and SD (yrs) Reason(s) for revision
Persona®, total 5:3 67.3 (± 6.9) 2.2 (± 0.94) Instability (n = 8, 100%); patellofemoral problem (n = 3, 37.5%); malalignment (n = 1, 12.5%); stiffness (n = 1, 12.5%)
Persona®, CR 3:1 68.9 (± 2.4) 2.5 (± 1.1) Instability (n = 4, 100%); patellofemoral problem (n = 1, 25%); malalignment (n = 1, 25%); stiffness (n = 1, 25%)
Persona®, PS 2:2 65.7 (± 10) 1.9 (0.7) Instability (n = 4, 100%); patellofemoral problem (n = 2, 50%)
NexGen®, total 14:1 69.4 (± 10.1) 7.9 (± 5.5) Instability (n = 9, 60%); stiffness (n = 3, 20%); malalignment (n = 2, 13.3%); others (periprosthetic fracture, progression OA, n = 2, 13.3%); patellofemoral problem (n = 1, 6.6%)
NexGen®, CR 9:1 71.9 (± 9.7) 7.4 (± 4.4) Instability (n = 6, 60%); stiffness (n = 2, 20%); malalignment (n = 1, 10%); others (periprosthetic fracture n = 1, 10%)
NexGen®, PS 5:0 64.4 (± 9.8) 8.9 (± 7.7) Instability (n = 3, 60%); stiffness (n = 1, 20%); malalignment (n = 1, 20%); others (progression OA n = 1, 20%); patellofemoral problem (n = 1, 20%)