Neurobionplus
Home About Journal AHEAD OF PRINT Current Issue Back Issues Instructions Submission Search Subscribe Blog    
Login 

Users Online: 9718 
Print this page  Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size 
 


 
 Table of Contents    
KNEE SYMPOSIUM  
Year : 2016  |  Volume : 50  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 131-135
Midterm survivorship and clinical outcome of INDUS knee prosthesis: 5 year followup study


Department of Orthopaedics, Sancheti Institute for Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, Pune, Maharashtra, India

Click here for correspondence address and email

Date of Web Publication29-Feb-2016
 

   Abstract 

Background: INDUS knee implant has been designed as per the anatomical morphology of the Indian population and has shown good clinical outcome in short term studies. The purpose of the present study was to report the midterm survivorship and clinical outcome of this implant.
Materials and Methods: Two hundred and twenty three primary total knee arthroplasties in 209 consecutive patients using the INDUS knee prosthesis were prospectively enrolled. There were 145 females (155 knees) and 64 males (68 knees) with a mean age of 69.95 years (range 42–86 years). Annual followup with clinical and radiological examination was conducted, and a survivorship analysis was done using the Kaplan–Meier analysis.
Results: Mean followup was 5.8 years (range 5–6.5 years). Eleven patients died while eight were lost to followup and a total of 204 knees were available for followup. The mean knee flexion improved from preoperative 110.4° ± 11.24° (range 60°–130°) to 128.17° ± 8.32° (range 100°–140°) at the final followup. The mean knee score improved from 40.1 ± 10.7 to 90.3 ± 5.34 while the function score improved from 44.35 ± 12.9 to 89.58 ± 7.43. Two patient developed infection and required revision. The Kaplan–Meier analysis reported a survivorship of 98.6% (confidence interval 95.7–99.6%) at the end for 5 years for INDUS knee prosthesis.
Conclusion: INDUS knee prosthesis has excellent survivorship with a good clinical outcome and low failure rate.

Keywords: INDUS knee, Kaplan-Meier, survivorship
MeSH terms: Knee joint, knee replacement, total, osteoarthritis, knee

How to cite this article:
Sancheti KH, Sancheti PK, Joshi RS, Patil KR, Shyam AK, Bhaskar RR. Midterm survivorship and clinical outcome of INDUS knee prosthesis: 5 year followup study. Indian J Orthop 2016;50:131-5

How to cite this URL:
Sancheti KH, Sancheti PK, Joshi RS, Patil KR, Shyam AK, Bhaskar RR. Midterm survivorship and clinical outcome of INDUS knee prosthesis: 5 year followup study. Indian J Orthop [serial online] 2016 [cited 2020 Jan 18];50:131-5. Available from: http://www.ijoonline.com/text.asp?2016/50/2/131/177583

   Introduction Top


Total knee replacement (TKR) surgery has redefined the lives of patients with severe knee arthritis. The major refinement in the field of knee arthroplasty is in terms of introduction of new designs of the prosthesis.[1],[2] The geographical, racial and socioeconomic factors define the need for research and development of a new prosthesis that can meet these specific demands. A knee flexion of 90°–100° can allow most daily activities to be done comfortably in the western world.[3] Higher flexion is required in Asians, particularly Indians, to perform social customs and daily habits.[4] The geographical variation in the size of distal femur and tibia is also significant. The INDUS knee was designed to fulfill the ethnic anatomical and cultural variations in the Indian population.[5],[6] It was introduced in 2005 and has a combination of high flexion design and sizing according to anatomical sizes of the Indian population. An earlier report presented 2 years followup of INDUS knee prosthesis with an average knee range of motion of 132.9°.[6] We present midterm survivorship and clinical outcome of INDUS knee prosthesis.


   Materials and Methods Top


A prospective data collection was started from 2006 and all consecutive patients operated with INDUS knee between 2006 and 2007 were included in the study. Ethics approval was taken for the study and an informed consent was taken. Two hundred and twenty three primary total knee arthroplasties in 209 consecutive patients using the INDUS knee prosthesis were prospectively enrolled. There were 145 women (155 knees) and 64 males (68 knees) with a mean age of 69.95 years (range 42–86). 195 patients underwent unilateral TKR while 14 patients underwent bilateral surgeries. The diagnosis was osteoarthritis in 169 knees (75.6%, 8 bilateral), rheumatoid arthritis in 51 knees (22.76%, 6 bilateral) and posttraumatic arthritis in three knees (1.62%). Grade of osteoarthritis as per the Kellgren and Lawrence system [7] was grade 4 in 72 knees, grade 3 in 85 knees, and grade 2 in 12 knees.

Implant

INDUS knee implant (Biorad Medisys Pvt., Ltd. Pune, India.) was designed taking into consideration the Indian knee morphology as per suggestions by Vaidya et al .[5] It is a posterior substituting design where the radius of curvature of the posterior condyle of femoral component is reduced to increase the rollback and flexion. Tibial component is a monoblock metal backed design with inbuilt 4° slope in the tibial insert and 3° slope in the metal base plate which in turn helps in achieving greater flexion. The post and cam mechanism is modified to form a third joint with congruent surfaces. This joint engages at more than 80° flexion and allows load bearing on deep flexion. The femoral components are separate for right and left knees and the patella is a single peg anatomic design.

Operative procedure

All patients were operated using standard operative protocol and were operated by the same team of surgeons. Medial parapatellar approach was used and tourniquet was applied in all surgeries. Bony cuts were made as per standard instrumentation using preoperative radiographs as guides. Distal femoral cut was made using an intramedullary guide. The proximal tibia was prepared using extramedullary guide and parallel to the tibial cut technique was used for posterior femoral cuts. Patelloplasty was done in 98 knees where there was no cartilage eburnation of patella and the patient was young. This included peripatellar synovectomy, cauterization of the patellar rim thus effectively denervating it and removal of osteophytes. The remaining patellae were replaced. Soft tissue release was done as per needs to balance the knee. In varus knees sequential release of superficial, deep medial collateral ligaments and the semimembranosus was done so as to achieve medio-lateral stability. Antibiotic impregnated cement was used in all cases, and second generation cementing was used. Manual pressurization of the cement was done. Postoperative drain was kept for 2 days and patients were mobilized from day 2 as per pain tolerance. An annual followup schedule was explained to the patient with both clinical and radiological examination at each followup. All patients completing 5 year postsurgery were called for a final followup where knee range of motion, flexion deformity, Knee score and function scores [8] were evaluated. Simple subjective pain grading was used to assess anterior knee pain (Grade 0 - no pain, grade 1 - mild pain, grade 2 - moderate pain, grade 3 - severe pain). Radiographic followup included a scanogram, anterior posterior and lateral knee radiographs. All radiographs were assessed by two clinical fellows to look for signs of implant loosening. Survivorship assessment was done using the Kaplan–Meier analysis. Paired t test or Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to compare the data depending on normal distribution of data. The level of significance was set as P < 0.05.


   Results Top


The mean followup was 5.8 years in our study (range 5–6.5 years). Eleven patients expired during the course of 5 years since the date of surgery. Nine patients expired due to medical issues which included renal failure, CVA and myocardial infarction. One patient expired due to complications following a cholecystectomy, 3 years after the knee surgery. Another patient died due to septicaemia following infection in the joint. All the patients who expired had unilateral knee replacement and thus 212 knees were available for final followup. Of these, eight knees were lost to followup (address not traceable). For the remaining knees (204), the mean knee flexion improved from preoperative 110.4 ± 11.24° (range 60°–130°) to 128.17 ± 8.32° (range 100°–140°) at the final followup (P < 0.0001). Of these, 8% had a range between 100° and 120°, 72% had a range between 120° and 130° while 20% had a key motion of range of more than 130°. Preoperatively, there was a flexion contracture of 12.3° ± 10.5° (range 0°–30°). This improved at the final followup to a mean of 2.7° ± 2.42° (range 0°–5°) (P value 0.0014 for Wilcoxon signed rank test). One hundred sixty four knees had grade 0 anterior knee pain, 33 had grade 1 anterior knee pain (19 nonresurfaced and 14 resurfaced patellae), and 7 knees had grade 2 anterior knee pain (4 nonresurfaced and 3 resurfaced). No knee had grade 3 anterior knee pain and no crepitus was palpable in any of the patients. No patients demanded revision or treatment for anterior knee pain. The mean knee score improved from 40.1 ± 10.7 to 90.3 ± 5.34 while the function score improved from 44.35 ± 12.9 to 89.58 ± 7.43 (P < 0.001). The mean preoperative tibiofemoral alignment was 9.3° ± 8.2° varus (range 35° varus to 20° valgus) which was noted to be 4.9° ± 2.7° valgus (0°–7° valgus). Two knees underwent two-stage revision because of late infection with Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa, respectively, which was identified 7 months and 18 months after surgery, respectively. In another knee, a peri-prosthetic supracondylar fracture of the femur occurred 17 months after operation, and this was treated successfully with open reduction and plate fixation. The femoral component remained well-fixed. In two other knees, patients had a fall which resulted in peri-prosthetic fracture of the tibia. They were treated successfully with open reduction and plating. The tibial component remained well-fixed. Both patients are walking well now. One patient who underwent TKR for rheumatoid arthritis of the right knee developed severe fixed deformities of other joints including the left knee and is now bed ridden. The operated right knee has a range of motion of 105°. On radiographs, there were radiolucent lines seen under tibia tray in 21 cases. However, these were non progressive on sequential radiographs and no tilting of tibial tray was seen or revision required for aseptic loosening of the prosthesis. On Kaplan–Meir survivorship analysis, INDUS knee prosthesis was found to have 98.6% survivorship (confidence interval 95.7–99.6%) at minimum 5-year followup for failure due to any reason [Table 1]. There were 3 failures, two infections and one progressive rheumatoid arthritis (as detailed earlier). The survival analysis was done taking into account patient who died, patients lost to followup and failed cases, so that a worst case scenario is accounted in the calculation. Since there was no aseptic loosening or mechanical failure, survival analysis with these as end point will yield 100% survival for INDUS knee implant.
Table 1: Five year survivorship analysis of INDUS knee prosthesis

Click here to view



   Discussion Top


Clinical outcome and survivorship are the two most important measures that establish the usefulness of implants in arthroplasty. We present midterm followup results of INDUS knee prosthesis with a 98.6% survivorship and good clinical outcome.

INDUS knee has been designed as a high flexion implant. High flexion implants have consistently reported an average knee flexion of more than 120° [Table 2][9],[10],[11],[12],[13],[14],[15],[16],[17] although a clinical advantage of this higher flexion is debatable.[18],[19],[20] In an earlier study of 2 years followup,[6] INDUS knee had reported an average range of motion as 132° while in 5-year followup the average knee range of motion was 128°. Although the mean range of motion seems to be a bit lower than the earlier study, it still is comparable to range of motion of high flexion implants reported in literature. The incidence of anterior knee pain was around 19.6% (40/204) of which 82.5% were with mild pain. This was comparable to an earlier report on Indus knee.[6],[21],[22] Other authors have reported the incidence of anterior knee pain to vary from 8% to 50%.[23],[24],[25] Systematic reviews have quoted similar rates of anterior knee pain in both resurfaced and nonresurfaced groups and same was the case in our series too.[26],[27] Some studies have implied anterior knee pain to severity of cartilage damage [28] while others have attributed it to dysfunctional muscular co-ordination in the thigh muscles.[29] In our series, we did selective resurfacing of patella according to the severity of cartilage damage and thus probably is the reason for lower rates of severe anterior knee pain. A detailed assessment of factors that affect the range of motion in INDUS knee is already published and this article does not wish to duplicate the analysis.[21],[22]
Table 2 : Literature review of range of knee flexion for high flexion knee prosthesis

Click here to view


Survivorship of various implants at 5-year midterm followup ranges from 90% to almost 100%.[30],[31],[32],[33],[34],[35],[36],[37] Rand and Ilstrup [38] in their study of 9200 TKRs suggested that the probability of any implant surviving would be about 97% at both 5 and 10 years, while recent meta-analysis [37] reported pooled survivorship of 98.4% at 5 year followup. Comparing with other implants, the INDUS knee showed a comparable survivorship rate (98.6%) with these recent reports [Table 3]. Good survivorship and low revision rates are function of surgical technique and also implant design. INDUS knee design is developed indigenously from data of the Indian population.[5] This helps in getting proper size of the implants and avoiding over and undersizing of the components. The modified post and cam functions as the third joint thus providing additional stability in deep function activities. Deep flexion activities are common in our country, and although our patients are advised against such activities, there are situations where they do flex the knees beyond 100°. Although we cannot always force the patients to follow our advice, the design stability of INDUS Knee does make these deep flexion activities safer as compared to conventional implants and is probably one of the most important causes of high survivorship. Again monoblock design avoiding backside wear and no cam postimpingement in rotations add to prevent total wear rates [6] and thus add to the longevity of the implant. Wear of polyethylene and resulting osteolysis play an important role in early failure of knee implant. INDUS knee reported a survivorship of 98.6% which in turn indicates less poly wear and can be taken as a surrogate to the quality of the polyethylene. Furthermore, there were no cases of aseptic loosening again indicating less amount of wear debris and osteolysis.
Table 3: Literature comparison of survivorship of TKA implants

Click here to view


Complications in our series are again comparable to other implants with 1% (2 out of 204) infection rate.[35],[36],[39] No cases of early loosening or implant subsidence was noted in present cases. Peri-prosthetic fractures had the lower rate compared to other series,[36],[39] likely reason being that our patients remain less aggressive with activities even after a successful surgery. Radiolucent lines were seen under the tibia tray and were also reported in the previous study of INDUS knee.[6] These were non progressive and are also reported by other studies,[40] however, longer followup of this series will be needed to ascertain their role in aseptic loosing.

Our study has a few limitations. There is no comparison group, however, this was purely designed to be a study for survival analysis of the implant. Few patients were lost to followup, and the survivorship could not be assessed in those, however, we considered these patients while calculating the survivorship and accounted for them in the analysis. The sample was comparatively smaller, as this was a single-center study. However, as in early days of the implant, maximum cases were done at one center, and so proper followup could be conducted at that center. Another limitation is relative short term followup of the implant. A multicenter and larger sample study is currently undergoing with the aim to attain a longer followup of the implant.

Thus, good clinical and functional results are achieved in our cases at the end of 5 years and survivorship of the implant was 98.6%. These results are comparable to other similar implants, however, long term followup (10–15 years) with a focus on aseptic loosening and functional outcomes are necessary to study about the long term efficiency of the implant.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

 
   References Top

1.
Insall J, Scott WN, Ranawat CS. The total condylar knee prosthesis. A report of two hundred and twenty cases. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1979;61:173-80.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Ranawat CS, Boachie-Adjei O. Survivorship analysis and results of total condylar knee arthroplasty. Eight- to 11-year followup period. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1988;226:6-13.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Dennis DA, Komistek RD, Colwell CE Jr, Ranawat CS, Scott RD, Thornhill TS, et al. In vivo anteroposterior femorotibial translation of total knee arthroplasty: A multicenter analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1998;356:47-57.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Mulholland SJ, Wyss UP. Activities of daily living in non-Western cultures: Range of motion requirements for hip and knee joint implants. Int J Rehabil Res 2001;24:191-8.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Vaidya SV, Ranawat CS, Aroojis A, Laud NS. Anthropometric measurements to design total knee prostheses for the Indian population. J Arthroplasty 2000;15:79-85.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Sancheti KH, Laud NS, Bhende H, Reddy G, Pramod N, Mani JN. The INDUS knee prosthesis-Prospective multicentric trial of a posteriorly stabilized high-flex design: 2 years followup. Indian J Orthop 2009;43:367-74.  Back to cited text no. 6
[PUBMED]  Medknow Journal  
7.
Kellgren JH, Lawrence JS. Radiological assessment of osteo-arthrosis. Ann Rheum Dis 1957;16:494-502.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD, Scott WN. Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1989;248:13-4.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Kim YH, Sohn KS, Kim JS. Range of motion of standard and high-flexion posterior stabilized total knee prostheses. A prospective, randomized study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005;87:1470-5.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Seon JK, Song EK, Lee JY. Comparison of range of motion of high-flexion prosthesis and mobile-bearing prosthesis in total knee arthroplasty. Orthopedics 2005;28:s1247-50.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Laskin RS. The effect of a high-flex implant on postoperative flexion after primary total knee arthroplasty. Orthopedics 2007;30:86-8.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Nutton RW, van der Linden ML, Rowe PJ, Gaston P, Wade FA. A prospective randomised double-blind study of functional outcome and range of flexion following total knee replacement with the NexGen standard and high flexion components. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2008;90:37-42.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Seon JK, Park SJ, Lee KB, Yoon TR, Kozanek M, Song EK. Range of motion in total knee arthroplasty: A prospective comparison of high-flexion and standard cruciate-retaining designs. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2009;91:672-9.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Endres S, Wilke A. Early experience with the NexGen® CR-Flex Mobile knee arthroplasty system: Results of 2-year followup. Orthop Rev (Pavia) 2010;2:e2.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Kim YH, Park JW, Kim JS. High-flexion total knee arthroplasty: Survivorship and prevalence of osteolysis: Results after a minimum of ten years of followup. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2012;94:1378-84.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Maniar RN, Singhi T. High-flex rotating platform knee implants: Two- to 6-year results of a prospective study. J Arthroplasty 2012;27:598-603.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Lee BS, Chung JW, Kim JM, Kim KA, Bin SI. High-flexion prosthesis improves function of TKA in Asian patients without decreasing early survivorship. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2013;471:1504-11.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Zhang Z, Zhu W, Zhang W. High-flexion posterior-substituting versus cruciate-retaining prosthesis in total knee arthroplasty: Functional outcome, range of motion and complication comparison. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2015;135:119-24.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Li C, Zeng Y, Shen B, Yang J, Zhou Z, Kang P, Pei F. Patients achieved greater range of movement when using high-flexion implants. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2015;23 (6):1598-609.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Fu H, Wang J, Zhang W, Cheng T, Zhang X. No clinical benefit of high-flex total knee arthroplasty. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Arthroplasty. 2015 Apr; 30 (4):573-9.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Sancheti KH, Sancheti PK, Shyam AK, Patil S, Dhariwal Q, Joshi R. Clinical and functional outcome of INDUS knee prosthesis-A prospective single centre study. Med J West India 2009;37:35-43.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Sancheti KH, Sancheti PK, Shyam AK, Joshi R, Patil K, Jain A. Factors affecting range of motion in total knee arthroplasty using high flexion prosthesis: A prospective study. Indian J Orthop 2013;47:50-6.  Back to cited text no. 22
[PUBMED]  Medknow Journal  
23.
van Jonbergen HP, Reuver JM, Mutsaerts EL, Poolman RW. Determinants of anterior knee pain following total knee replacement: A systematic review. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2014;22:478-99.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Sensi L, Buzzi R, Giron F, De Luca L, Aglietti P. Patellofemoral function after total knee arthroplasty: Gender-related differences. J Arthroplasty 2011;26:1475-80.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
van Jonbergen HP, Scholtes VA, Poolman RW. A randomised, controlled trial of circumpatellar electrocautery in total knee replacement without patellar resurfacing: A concise followup at a mean of 3.7 years. Bone Joint J 2014;96-B: 473-8.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Pilling RW, Moulder E, Allgar V, Messner J, Sun Z, Mohsen A. Patellar resurfacing in primary total knee replacement: A meta-analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2012;94:2270-8.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
He JY, Jiang LS, Dai LY. Is patellar resurfacing superior than nonresurfacing in total knee arthroplasty? A meta-analysis of randomized trials. Knee 2011;18:137-44.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Metsna V, Vorobjov S, Lepik K, Märtson A. Anterior knee pain following total knee replacement correlates with the OARSI score of the cartilage of the patella. Acta Orthop 2014;85:427-32.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
Petersen W, Rembitzki IV, Brüggemann GP, Ellermann A, Best R, Koppenburg AG, et al. Anterior knee pain after total knee arthroplasty: A narrative review. Int Orthop 2014;38:319-28.  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.
Font-Rodriguez DE, Scuderi GR, Insall JN. Survivorship of cemented total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1997;345:79-86.  Back to cited text no. 30
    
31.
Shen B, Yang J, Zhou Z, Kang P, Wang L, Pei F. Survivorship comparison of all-polyethylene and metal-backed tibial components in cruciate-substituting total knee arthroplasty – Chinese experience. Int Orthop 2009;33:1243-7.  Back to cited text no. 31
    
32.
Asif S, Choon DS. Midterm results of cemented Press Fit Condylar Sigma total knee arthroplasty system. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 2005;13:280-4.  Back to cited text no. 32
    
33.
Dalury DF, Gonzales RA, Adams MJ, Gruen TA, Trier K. Midterm results with the PFC Sigma total knee arthroplasty system. J Arthroplasty 2008;23:175-81.  Back to cited text no. 33
    
34.
Kim YH, Kim DY, Kim JS. Simultaneous mobile- and fixed-bearing total knee replacement in the same patients. A prospective comparison of mid-term outcomes using a similar design of prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2007;89:904-10.  Back to cited text no. 34
    
35.
Meftah M, Ranawat AS, Ranawat CS. Ten-year followup of a rotating-platform, posterior-stabilized total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2012;94:426-32.  Back to cited text no. 35
    
36.
Clayton RA, Amin AK, Gaston MS, Brenkel IJ. Five-year results of the Sigma total knee arthroplasty. Knee 2006;13:359-64.  Back to cited text no. 36
    
37.
Hopley CD, Dalury DF. A systematic review of clinical outcomes and survivorship after total knee arthroplasty with a contemporary modular knee system. J Arthroplasty 2014;29:1398-411.  Back to cited text no. 37
    
38.
Rand JA, Ilstrup DM. Survivorship analysis of total knee arthroplasty. Cumulative rates of survival of 9200 total knee arthroplasties. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1991;73:397-409.  Back to cited text no. 38
    
39.
Attar FG, Khaw FM, Kirk LM, Gregg PJ. Survivorship analysis at 15 years of cemented press-fit condylar total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2008;23:344-9.  Back to cited text no. 39
    
40.
Hakki S, Saleh KJ, Potty AG, Bilotta V, Oliveira D. Columbus navigated TKA system: Clinical and radiological results at a minimum of 5 years with survivorship analysis. Orthopedics 2013;36:e308-18.  Back to cited text no. 40
    

Top
Correspondence Address:
Ashok K Shyam
Sancheti Institute for Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, 16, Shivaji Nagar, Pune - - 411 005, Maharashtra
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0019-5413.177583

Rights and Permissions



 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3]



 

Top
 
 
 
  Search
 
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  
 


 
    Abstract
   Introduction
    Materials and Me...
   Results
   Discussion
    References
    Article Tables
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1790    
    Printed31    
    Emailed1    
    PDF Downloaded156    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal