Intersystemic compatibility for revision and primary procedures

The modular design of the BPK-S Integration System offers the surgeon the option of flexibly adapting the treatment to the patient. The uniform cutting geometry and external contour of the primary and revision implants ensure that primary and revision components can be combined freely to a large extent, thus offering comprehensive treatment options.

If greater stability is required to support insufficient medio-lateral ligament or capsular structures, the primary bone cuts can be easily extended. To do this, simply adjust the implant box into which the Semi-Constrained (SC) or Hinge (RH/TH) mechanism is integrated.

Even an intraoperative switch from the Semi-Constrained (SC) to the Hinge (RH/TH) version is possible without additional bone cuts. At the end of the surgical procedure, it is at the surgeon’s discretion to apply the required individual degree of stabilisation based on their experience.

Intraoperative flexibility, i.e. the ability to adapt to the patient’s individual situation, combined with a precise implantation technique, makes the BPK-S Integration knee system an excellent choice for complex primary or revision procedures.

The added benefit of stability and mobility

The revision system has established itself primarily as a reliable solution for complex primary procedures or major revision surgery involving ligament insufficiency, advanced knee instability or difficult joint positions.

Patients benefit from a return to an active lifestyle and an improved quality of life.

______________________

Material

  • Implant components: Co28Cr6Mo
  • Cementless stems: Ti6Al4V
  • Inserts and patella: UHMW-PE
  • Clamping screw: Co28Cr6Mo + titanium nitride coating (TiN)

______________________

Design & Function

FEMUR Component SC & RH/TH

  • 4 femur sizes (SC and RH/TH) with femoral components featuring a 6° valgus angle (connection for ADAPTER femur and straight ANCHORING STEM)
  • Distal femoral augments up to 20 mm
  • Posterior femoral augments up to 10 mm

Straight ANCHORING STEM

  • Cementless (1 mm increments)
    → Length 40, 80 mm, Ø 13–30 mm
    → Length 140 mm, Ø 13–22 mm
  •  Cemented (2 mm increments)
    → Length 40, 80, 140 mm, Ø 10–22 mm
  •  Offset 0, 4 and 6 mm, freely adjustable through 360°
  •  3° adapter (tibial slope adaptation; offset 0 mm)

PE insert

  • Height in 2 mm increments
    → SC: 7–17 mm
    → RH/TH: 7–25 mm

TIBIA component

  •  6 tibia sizes SC (0° tibial slope)
  •  4 tibia sizes RH/TH (0° tibial slope)
  •  ~ 4.5 mm proximal resection
  •  Tibial augments (CoCr) up to 3 x 5 mm L/R
  •  Tibial metaphyseal cones (Ti6Al4V) 8 sizes

______________________

System overview/
Size combination

Learn more:

______________________

Advantages

  • Wide range of tibio-femoral sizes for independent sizing of the femoral and tibial components (4)
  • Integrated cross-system compatibility across all stability levels for intraoperative flexibility
  • Self-alignment of tibio-femoral rotation combined with high conformity of the bearing pair, joint stability and large contact surfaces through mobile bearing (1–15)
  • Stable instrument setup through reference-shaft-based instrumentation

Downloads

Here you will find product information. This includes the instrumentation guide (surgical technique), summaries of scientific articles (executive summaries), and clinical case reports.

Surgical Technique
BPK-S Integration revision knee system
Short description surgical technique
BPK-S Integration revision knee system
Implant Product Overview
BPK-S Integration revision knee system
Size determination
BPK-S Integration revision knee system
Surgical Technique
Cross-over technique (cemented)
BPK-S Integration Family
  1. Amaro JT, Novaretti JV, Astur DC, Calvalcante ELB, Rodrigues Junior AG, Debieux P, Kaleka CC, Cohen M. Higher Axial Tibiofemoral Rotation and Functional Outcomes with Mobile-Bearing Compared with Fixed-Bearing Total Knee Arthroplatsy at 1- but Not at 2-Year Follow-Up – A Randomized Clinical Trial. J Knee Surg. 2020;33(5):474-480.
  2. Bernasek T, Stahl J, Haidukewich G. Mobile-Bearing Versus Fixed-Bearing Total Knee Arthroplasty: Results with a Cruciate-Retaining Knee System. J Arthroplasty 2007;22(2):P312.
  3. Bottlang M, Erne OK, Lacatusu E, Sommers MB, Kessler O. A mobile-bearing knee prosthesis can reduce strain at the proximal tibia. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;447:105-111.
  4. Data on file, PETER BREHM GmbH
  5. Dennis DA, Komistek RD. Mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty: design factors in minimizing wear. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;452:70-77.
  6. Engh GA, Zimmerman RL, Parks NL, Engh CA. Analysis of wear in retrieved mobile and fixed bearing knee inserts. J Arthroplasty 2009;24(6 Suppl):28-32.
  7. Fisher J, Jennings LM, Galvin AL, Jin ZM, Stone MH, Ingham E. 2009 Knee Society Presidential Guest Lecture: Polyethylene wear in total knees. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468(1):12-18. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19669846/
  8. Fisher J, McEwen H, Tipper J, Jennings L, Farrar R, Stone M, Ingham E. Wear-simulation analysis of rotating-platform mobile-bearing knees. Orthopedics. 2006;29(9 Suppl):S36-41.
  9. Malinzak RA, Small SR, Rogge RD, Archer DB, Oja JW, Berend ME, Ritter MA. The effect of rotating platform TKA on strain distribution and torque transmission on the proximal tibia. J Arthroplasty. 2014;29(3):541-547.
  10. McEwen HM, Barnett PI, Bell CJ, Farrar R, Auger DD, Stone MH, Fisher J. The influence of design, materials and kinematics on the in vitro wear of total knee replacements. J Biomech. 2005;38(2):357-365.
  11. Ranawat CS, Komistek RD, Rodriguez JA, Dennis DA, Anderle M. In vivo kinematics for fixed and mobile-bearing posterior stabilized knee prostheses. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;(418):184-190.
  12. Rees JL, Beard DJ, Price AJ, Gill HS, McLardy-Smith P, Dodd CA, Murray DW. Real in vivo kinematic differences between mobile-bearing and fixed-bearing total knee arthroplasties. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005;(432):204-209.
  13. Sawaguchi N, Majima T, Ishigaki T, Mori N, Terashima T, Minami A. Mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty improves patellar tracking and patellofemoral contact stress: in vivo measurements in the same patients. J Arthroplasty. 2010;25(6):920-925.
  14. Stiehl JB. Comparison of tibial rotation in fixed and mobile bearing total knee arthroplasty using computer navigation. Int Orthop. 2009;33(3):679-685. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18618114/
  15. Yang CC, McFadden LA, Dennis DA, Kim RH, Sharma A. Lateral retinacular release rates in mobile- versus fixed-bearing TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008;466(11):2656-2661. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18709430/

Ready for your next knee revision?

Tibiakonen Metaphysär, metallischer Knochenersatz zur Defektsanierung

TIBIAL CONE Metaphyseal

Knee – Revision
drei Ausführungen der KAM Titan

KAM-TITAN

Knee – Revision
KAM-Titan im Bein

Custom-made-implants

KAM-Monoblock