| The Surgical Technologist | AUGUST 2022 364 Kostretzis et al. Kinematic Alignment Total Knee Revision 13. Rivière C, Lazic S, Boughton O, Wiart Y, Vïllet L, Cobb J. Current concepts for aligning knee implants: patient-specific or systematic? EFORT Open Rev. (2017) 3:1–6. doi: 10.1302/2058-5241.3.170021 14. Roussot MA, Vles GF, Oussedik S. Clinical outcomes of kinematic alignment versus mechanical alignment in total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review. EFORT Open Rev. (2020) 5:486–97. doi: 10.1302/2058-5241.5.190093 15. Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, Campbell J, Stitt LW. Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. J Rheumatol. (1988) 15:1833–40. 16. Meneghini RM, Mont MA, Backstein DB, Bourne RB, Dennis DA, Scuderi GR. Development of a modern knee society radiographic evaluation system and methodology for total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. (2015) 30:2311– 4. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2015.05.049 17. Berger RA, Crossett LS. Determining the rotation of the femoral and tibial components in total knee arthroplasty: a computer tomography technique. Oper Tech Orthop. (1998) 8:128–33. doi: 10.1016/S1048-6666(98)80022-0 18. Kim YH, Park JW, Kim JS, Park SD. The relationship between the survival of total knee arthroplasty and postoperative coronal, sagittal and rotational alignment of knee prosthesis. Int Orthop. (2014) 38:379– 85. doi: 10.1007/s00264-013-2097-9 19. Gwam CU, Chughtai M, Khlopas A, Mohamed N, Elmallah RK, Malkani AL, et al. Short-to-midterm outcomes of revision total knee arthroplasty patients with a total stabilizer knee system. J Arthroplasty. (2017) 32:2480–3. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2017.02.065 20. Stevens JM, Clement ND, MacDonald D, Hamilton DF, Burnett R. Survival and functional outcome of revision total knee arthroplasty with a total stabilizer knee system: minimum 5 years of follow-up. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. (2019) 29:1511–7. doi: 10.1007/s00590-019-02449-9 21. Limberg AK, Tibbo ME, Pagnano MW, Perry KI, Hanssen AD, Abdel MP. Varus-valgus constraint in 416 revision total knee arthroplasties with cemented stems provides a reliable reconstruction with a low subsequent revision rate at early to mid-term review. Bone Jt J. (2020) 102:458–62. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.102B4.BJJ-2019-0719.R2 22. Greidanus NV, Peterson RC, Masri BA, Garbuz DS. Quality of life outcomes in revision versus primary total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. (2011) 26:615–20. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2010.04.026 23. Kasmire KE, Rasouli MR, Mortazavi SMJ, Sharkey PF, Parvizi J. Predictors of functional outcome after revision total knee arthroplasty following aseptic failure. Knee. (2014) 21:264–7. doi: 10.1016/j.knee.2012.10.017 Conflict of Interest: P-AV reports grants, personal fees, and royalties from Microport Inc., grants and personal fees from Stryker, grants and personal fees from Medacta, and grants and personal fees from Johnson and Johnson, outside the submitted work. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. Publisher’s Note: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher. Copyright © 2021 Kostretzis, Roby, Martinov, Kiss, Barry and Vendittoli. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. Frontiers in Surgery | www.frontiersin.org 16 August 2021 | Volume 8 | Article 721379 Kinematic Alignment Total Knee Revision rent concepts RT Open Rev. atic alignment ematic review. 90093 W. Validation ring clinically g therapy in 8) 15:1833–40. s DA, Scuderi uation system 015) 30:2311– oral and tibial hy technique. 8)80022-0 between the onal, sagittal 2014) 38:379– RK, Malkani e arthroplasty 17) 32:2480–3. ett R. Survival with a total Orthop Surg n AD, Abdel oplasties with w subsequent revision rate at early to mid-term review. Bone Jt J. (2020) 102:458–62. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.102B4.BJJ-2019-0719.R2 22. Greidanus NV, Peterson RC, Masri BA, Garbuz DS. Quality of life outcomes in revision versus primary total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. (2011) 26:615–20. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2010.04.026 23. Kasmire KE, Rasouli MR, Mortazavi SMJ, Sharkey PF, Parvizi J. Predictors of functional outcome after revision total knee arthroplasty following aseptic failure. Knee. (2014) 21:264–7. doi: 10.1016/j.knee.2012.10.017 Conflict of Interest: P-AV reports grants, personal fees, and royalties from Microport Inc., grants and personal fees from Stryker, grants and personal fees from Medacta, and grants and personal fees from Johnson and Johnson, outside the submitted work. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. Publisher’s Note: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher. Copyright © 2021 Kostretzis, Roby, Martinov, Kiss, Barry and Vendittoli. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. C E E X A M Earn CE Credits at Home You will be awarded continuing education (CE) credits toward your recertification after reading the d s gnated article and completing e test with a score of 70%or better. If youdonot pass the test, it will be returned along with your payment. Send the original answer sheet from the journal and make a copy for your records. If possible use a credit card (debit or credit) for payment. It is a faster option for processing of credits and offers m re flexibility for correc payment. When submitting multiple tests, you do not need to submit a separate check for each journal test. You may submit multiple journal tests with one check or money order. Members this test is also available online at www.ast.org. No stamps or checks and it posts to your record automatically! Members: $6 per credit (per credit not per test) Nonmembers: $10 per credit (per credit not per test plus the $400 nonmember fee per submission) After your credits are processed, AST will send you a letter acknowledging the number of credits that were accepted. Members can also check your CE credit status online with your login information at www.ast.org. 3 WAYS TO SUBMIT YOUR CE CREDITS Mail to: AST, Member Services, 6 West Dry Creek Circle Ste 200, Littleton, CO 80120-8031 Fax CE credits to: 303-694-9169 E-mail scanned CE credits in PDF format to: [email protected] For questions please contact Member Services - [email protected] or 800-637-7433, option 3. Business hours: Mon-Fri, 8:00a.m. - 4:30 p.m., MT
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTExMDc1