Literature DB >> 11129829

Unicondylar knee arthroplasty: a cementless perspective.

M E Forsythe1, R E Englund, R K Leighton.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the results of cementless unicondylar knee arthroplasty (UKA) with those already reported in a similar study on cemented UKA.
DESIGN: A case-series cross-sectional study.
SETTING: The Queen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre, Dalhousie University, Halifax. PATIENTS: Fifty-one patients who underwent a total of 57 UKAs between May 1989 and May 1997. Inclusion criteria were osteoarthritis involving the predominantly the medial compartment of the knee, relative sparing of the other compartments, less than 15 degrees of varus, minimal knee instability, and attendance at the postoperative clinical visit. INTERVENTION: Cementless UKA. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Clinical parameters that included pain, range of motion and the Knee Society Clinical Knee Score. Roentgenographic parameters that included alpha, beta, gamma and sigma angles and the presence of periprosthetic radiolucency or loose beads.
RESULTS: Age, weight, gender and follow-up interval did not significantly affect the clinical results in terms of pain, range of motion or knee score. Knees with more than 1 mm of radiolucency had significantly lower knee scores than those with no radiolucency. Knees that radiologically had loose beads also had significantly lower knee scores. The clinical outcomes of cementless UKA were comparable to those already reported on cemented UKA. Cementless femurs had less radiolucency than the cemented femurs, whereas cementless tibias had more radiolucency than their cemented counterparts.
CONCLUSIONS: Cementless UKA seems to be as efficacious as cemented UKA. However, there is some concern about the amount of radiolucency in the cementless tibial components. A randomized clinical trial comparing both cementless and cemented tibial components with a cementless femur (hybrid knee) is needed to further assess this controversial issue in UKA.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2000        PMID: 11129829      PMCID: PMC3695196     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Can J Surg        ISSN: 0008-428X            Impact factor:   2.089


  9 in total

1.  Extended sagittal saw cut significantly reduces fracture load in cementless unicompartmental knee arthroplasty compared to cemented tibia plateaus: an experimental cadaver study.

Authors:  J B Seeger; D Haas; S Jäger; E Röhner; S Tohtz; M Clarius
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2011-10-15       Impact factor: 4.342

Review 2.  Larger range of motion and increased return to activity, but higher revision rates following unicompartmental versus total knee arthroplasty in patients under 65: a systematic review.

Authors:  Laura J Kleeblad; Jelle P van der List; Hendrik A Zuiderbaan; Andrew D Pearle
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2017-11-28       Impact factor: 4.342

3.  High rate of implant loosening for uncemented resurfacing-type medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Danilo Bruni; Stefano Zaffagnini; Francesco Iacono; Laura Bragonzoni; Mirco Lo Presti; Maria Pia Neri; Giulio Maria Marcheggiani Muccioli; Marco Nitri; Giovanni Raspugli; Maurilio Marcacci
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2014-11-22       Impact factor: 4.342

Review 4.  Outcomes of cementless fixation in medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: review of recent literature.

Authors:  M Basso; E Arnaldi; A A M Bruno; M Formica
Journal:  Musculoskelet Surg       Date:  2020-06-26

Review 5.  Cementless fixation in medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a systematic review.

Authors:  S Campi; H G Pandit; C A F Dodd; D W Murray
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2016-07-19       Impact factor: 4.342

6.  Cementless versus cemented Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: early results of a non-designer user group.

Authors:  B Kerens; M G M Schotanus; B Boonen; P Boog; P J Emans; H Lacroix; N P Kort
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2016-05-09       Impact factor: 4.342

7.  Analysis of revision procedures for failed unicondylar knee replacement.

Authors:  K O Oduwole; M K Sayana; F Onayemi; T McCarthy; J O'Byrne
Journal:  Ir J Med Sci       Date:  2009-12-02       Impact factor: 1.568

8.  Promising short-term clinical results of the cementless Oxford phase III medial unicondylar knee prosthesis.

Authors:  Karin B van Dorp; Stefan Jm Breugem; Daniël J Bruijn; Marcel Jm Driessen
Journal:  World J Orthop       Date:  2016-04-18

Review 9.  Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, an enigma, and the ten enigmas of medial UKA.

Authors:  Anurag Mittal; Prashant Meshram; Woo Hyun Kim; Tae Kyun Kim
Journal:  J Orthop Traumatol       Date:  2020-09-02
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.