This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Letters to the Editor: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Letters to the Editor are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Convery, F. R.
Right arrow Articles by Malcom, L. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Convery, F. R.
Right arrow Articles by Malcom, L. L.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Vol 62, Issue 3 320-327, Copyright © 1980 by Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc

JOURNAL CONTENTS

The spherocentric knee: a re-evaluation and modification

FR Convery, M Minteer-Convery and LL Malcom

The purpose of this study was to assess prospectively the initial results of total knee replacement with the standard spherocentric component and to identify retrospectively the pathogenesis of any unsatisfactory results. As a consequence of this study, the femoral component was modified. Thirty-six knees were reviewed twenty-two to fifty-two months after a standard spherocentric total knee replacement, with a mean follow-up of thirty-five months. Twenty-five (70 per cent) of the knees had significant relief of pain and improved function. Eleven knees were not improved because of confirmed loosening in five, supracondylar fracture in two, infection in one, and suspected loosening in three. Ten of these eleven complications became manifest within the first postoperative year. Alignment in the coronal plane was not consistently precise and hyperextension was a recurrent problem in twelve of the thirty-six knees. A modification in the femoral component was made: the stem was lengthened to 10.0 centimeters and the body was reoriented so that there was 5 degrees of valgus and 15 more degrees of posterior rotation than the original design. This modified prosthesis was used in twenty-five additional knees, with definite improvement in alignment, but the follow-up was insufficient to ascertain the effect of the modification on lossening and fracture.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 JBJSHome page
S. B. Shawen, P. J. Belmont Jr., W. R. Klemme, L.D. T. Topoleski, J. S. Xenos, and J. R. Orchowski
Osteoporosis and Anterior Femoral Notching in Periprosthetic Supracondylar Femoral Fractures: A Biomechanical Analysis
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., January 17, 2003; 85(1): 115 - 121.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]