Search Filters

  • Media Source
  • Presentation Format
  • Media Type
  • Media Year
  • Language
  • Diagnosis / Condition
  • Diagnosis Method
  • Patient Populations
  • Treatment / Technique

Significant Soft Tissue Problems Associated with the KineSpring Knee Implant System: A Small UK Cohort Study

Significant Soft Tissue Problems Associated with the KineSpring Knee Implant System: A Small UK Cohort Study

John Francis Davies, MB ChB, MRCS, MSc(Eng), UNITED KINGDOM David W. Elson, MBChB, MRCS, FRCS (T&O), UNITED KINGDOM Leo Vachtsevanos, MD, MRCS, UNITED KINGDOM Rhys Williams, MD, UNITED KINGDOM

Cardiff and Vale University Health Board, Cardiff, Cardiff, UNITED KINGDOM


2015 Congress   Paper Abstract   2015 Congress   Not yet rated

 

Anatomic Location

Anatomic Structure

Diagnosis / Condition

Sports Medicine

Treatment / Technique


Summary: The KineSpring® (KS) Knee Implant System (Moximed, Inc, Hayward, CA) is a novel joint preserving, extra-articular implant for the treatment of osteoarthritis in young patients; after implantation in our series functional outcomes were comparable to arthroplasty although a high proportion of patients experienced soft tissue problems and progression of arthritis.


Introduction

A treatment gap exists for patients with debilitating knee osteoarthritis who are too young to be considered for arthroplasty. The KineSpring® (KS) Knee Implant System (Moximed, Inc, Hayward, CA) is a novel joint preserving, extra-articular implant. The KS is a load sharing absorber which is positioned superficial to the medial collateral ligament and offloads the medial compartment. This study is a retrospective assessment of surgical results in a small cohort.

Methods

Post-operative domains for the soft tissue problems; pain, stiffness, swelling and irritation were assessed using visual analogue scales and functional outcome measures were recorded in 18 consecutive patients with a minimum follow-up of 1 year.

Results

Twenty two KS devices were implanted in 18 patients (14 unilateral, 4 bilateral) over a 3 year period (2010 to 2013). 9 KS devices (41%) have been removed during the study period. 3 were converted to high tibial osteotomy for persistent pain, 2 to uni compartmental replacement and 1 to a total knee replacement. Two KS were removed because of associated bursal swellings and synovial fistulae. One device was removed for infection. Of the 13 KS devices which remain implanted; 7 have soft tissue problems which are manageable. Median Oxford knee score in the surviving KS devices was 35 (IQR 29.5 - 44), which is comparable to typical results following arthroplasty.

Conclusion

Whilst functional outcome scores after implantation are favorable, a high proportion of patients experienced soft tissue problems and progression of the arthritic process. Surgeons should be aware of significant soft tissue problems associated with this bulky extra-articular device. Further research is necessary to explore wear debris generation from the load absorber unit, and the long-term results of this novel device.