[Total knee replacement without patellar resurfacing: about 60 cases].

Journal and index pages often block iframe embedding. This reader keeps the evidence details in Orthonotes and leaves the source page one click away.

Abstract

[Indexed for MEDLINE] Conflict of interest statement: Les auteurs ne déclarent aucun conflit d’interêts. 15. J Arthroplasty. 2025 Oct 4:S0883-5403(25)01236-7. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2025.09.046. Online ahead of print. A Prospective, Single-Center, Randomized Controlled Study Comparing Non-Resurfacing versus Resurfacing in a Cohort of 250 Posterior-Stabilized Total Knee Arthroplasty With a Minimum Five-Year Follow-Up. Catteeuw A(1), Vermue H(2), Lefeuvre A(1), Servien E(3), Batailler C(4), Lustig S(1). Author information: (1)Department of Orthopedic Surgery and Sport Medicine, Croix-Rousse Hospital, FIFA Medical Center of Excellence, Lyon, France. (2)Department of Orthopedic Surgery and Sport Medicine, Croix-Rousse Hospital, FIFA Medical Center of Excellence, Lyon, France; Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium. (3)Department of Orthopedic Surgery and Sport Medicine, Croix-Rousse Hospital, FIFA Medical Center of Excellence, Lyon, France; Interuniversity Laboratory of Human Movement Science, Université Lyon 1, Lyon, France. (4)Department of Orthopedic Surgery and Sport Medicine, Croix-Rousse Hospital, FIFA Medical Center of Excellence, Lyon, France; Université de Lyon, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, IFSTTAR, Lyon, France. BACKGROUND: Despite extensive research, patellar management during total knee arthroplasty (TKA) remains controversial. We therefore asked the following: Is there a difference in clinical and radiological outcomes at a minimum 5-year follow-up with a modern posterior-stabilized TKA performed with or without patellar resurfacing (PR)? MATERIALS AND METHODS: This single-center prospective randomized trial included 250 knees (245 patients) undergoing primary TKA between April 2017 and November 2018. Exclusion criteria were isolated patellofemoral osteoarthritis, constrained TKA, and preoperative flexion less than 90°. Patients were randomized into PR or patellar nonresurfacing (PNR) groups, receiving the same posterior-stabilized "patella-friendly" prosthesis. Clinical evaluation at 5-year follow-up included the Knee Society Score (KSS), Forgotten Joint Score, Kujala and Lille scores for anterior knee pain, and range of motion. Radiographic assessment evaluated patellofemoral osteoarthritis progression and patellar implant loosening. Complications and surgical revisions were recorded. RESULTS: There were 213 knees (109 in PR, 104 in PNR) available with a 5-year follow-up (9% lost to follow-up and 4% deceased). Clinical outcomes showed no significant differences between groups (KSS knee: P = 0.10; KSS function: P = 0.19; Forgotten Joint Score: P = 0.24; Kujala: P = 0.36; Lille: P = 0.43). There were five patients (4.5%) in PNR who required secondary PR, whereas two patients (1.8%) in PR required revision of the patellar button. The revision rate for patellofemoral causes was 3.8%, without significant difference between groups (P = 0.16). At 60 months, implant survival was similar between PR and PNR (93.6 and 91.8%; P = 0.96). CONCLUSION: This large prospective randomized study found no clinical advantage of routine PR at 5-year follow-up. While resurfacing may reduce anterior knee pain, it also introduces risks such as fracture and maltracking. In the context of patella-friendly posterior-stabilized implants, these findings support a more selective approach, which should be guided by objective criteria. Copyright © 2025 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2025.09.046