Basit öğe kaydını göster

dc.contributor.authorÜnkar, Ethem Ayhan
dc.contributor.authorÖztürkmen, Yusuf
dc.contributor.authorŞükür, Erhan
dc.contributor.authorÇarkçı, Engin
dc.contributor.authorMert, Murat
dc.date.accessioned10.07.201910:49:13
dc.date.accessioned2019-07-10T19:37:33Z
dc.date.available10.07.201910:49:14
dc.date.available2019-07-10T19:37:33Z
dc.date.issued2017en_US
dc.identifier.citationÜnkar, E. A., Öztürkmen, Y., Şükür, E., Çarkçı, E. ve Mert, M. (2017). Posterior cruciate-retaining versus posterior-stabilized total knee arthroplasty for osteoarthritis with severe varus deformity. Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica, 51(2), 95-99. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aott.2016.12.008en_US
dc.identifier.issn1017-995X
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12511/1428
dc.identifier.urihttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aott.2016.12.008
dc.description.abstractObjective: The aim of this study was to compare the radiological and functional results of posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) - retaining and posterior-stabilized total knee arthroplasties in patients with severe varus gonarthrosis. Methods: Medical records of 112 knees of 96 patients who underwent total knee arthroplasty for severe varus (?15°) were reviewed. PCL-retaining and PCL-stabilizing groups consisted of 58 and 54 knees, respectively. Mean follow-up time was 56.6 months (range: 24-112 months). Knee Society (KS) clinical rating system was used in clinical evaluation. Range of motion, degree of flexion contracture, postoperative alignment, and complication rates were compared between the groups. Results: Mean preoperative mechanical tibiofemoral angle was 20.1° in varus alignment, and was restored to 4.6° in valgus postoperatively. No statistically significant differences were found between PCL-stabilizing and PCL-retaining groups when KS knee scores, function scores, and flexion arc were evaluated. Two patients in PCL-retaining group underwent revision surgery due to aseptic loosening of tibial component. One patient in PCL-stabilizing group needed arthrotomy due to patellar clunk syndrome. Conclusion: There were no notable differences between the 2 groups and PCL-retaining design had outcomes as good as PCL-stabilizing total knee implant in osteoarthritic knees with severe varus deformity. Level of evidence: Level III, Therapeutic study.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherEkin Medical Publishingen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessen_US
dc.rightsAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International*
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/*
dc.subjectPosterior Cruciate Ligament-Retainingen_US
dc.subjectPosterior Cruciate Ligament-Stabilizationen_US
dc.subjectTotal Kknee Arthroplastyen_US
dc.subjectVarus Deformityen_US
dc.titlePosterior cruciate-retaining versus posterior-stabilized total knee arthroplasty for osteoarthritis with severe varus deformityen_US
dc.typearticleen_US
dc.relation.ispartofActa Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcicaen_US
dc.departmentİstanbul Medipol Üniversitesi, Tıp Fakültesi, Cerrahi Tıp Bilimleri Bölümü, Ortopedi ve Travmatoloji Ana Bilim Dalıen_US
dc.identifier.volume51en_US
dc.identifier.issue2en_US
dc.identifier.startpage95en_US
dc.identifier.endpage99en_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.aott.2016.12.008en_US
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ4en_US
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ3en_US


Bu öğenin dosyaları:

Thumbnail

Bu öğe aşağıdaki koleksiyon(lar)da görünmektedir.

Basit öğe kaydını göster

info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
Aksi belirtilmediği sürece bu öğenin lisansı: info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess