Literature DB >> 12439239

Comparison of a mobile with a fixed-bearing unicompartmental knee implant.

Roger H Emerson1, Thomas Hansborough, Richard D Reitman, Wolfgang Rosenfeldt, Linda L Higgins.   

Abstract

Two well-matched groups of patients with unicompartmental knee arthroplasties were compared. The first 51 knees were treated with a fixed-bearing knee implant and the second 50 knees were treated with a mobile meniscal-bearing implant. Followup was 7.7 years for the patients with fixed-bearing implants and 6.8 years for patients with mobile-bearing implants. Both groups functioned well clinically. Radiographic analysis with 3-foot standing views taken preoperatively showed both groups had an average varus alignment of -2 degrees. Postoperatively patients with fixed-bearing implants had an average +2.6 degrees alignment and the patients with mobile-bearing implants had +5.5 degrees alignment, which was significantly different. Survivorship analysis based on component loosening and revision showed a 99% survival for the meniscal-bearing implant and 93% survival for the fixed-bearing implant at 11 years. However, the fixed-bearing knee implants failed significantly more often because of tibial component failure, in six of eight knees, at an average of 6.3 years. The mobile-bearing implants showed a trend to fail because of arthritic degeneration in the lateral compartment, at an average of 10 years, although not statistically significant. The mobile-bearing implants had no tibial component failures. These differences may be attributable to implant design or surgical technique.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12439239     DOI: 10.1097/00003086-200211000-00011

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res        ISSN: 0009-921X            Impact factor:   4.176


  29 in total

1.  Survival analysis and functional outcome of the Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement up to 11 years follow up at a District General Hospital.

Authors:  M Edmondson; A Atrey; D East; N Ellens; K Miles; R Goddard; H Apthorp; A Butler-Manuel
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2015-05-18

2.  Early failure of a mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee replacement.

Authors:  Mateen H Arastu; J Vijayaraghavan; H Chissell; J B Hull; J H Newman; J R Robinson
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2009-03-31       Impact factor: 4.342

Review 3.  Causes of revision following Oxford phase 3 unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Seung-Ju Kim; Ricardo Postigo; Sowon Koo; Jong Hun Kim
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2013-09-01       Impact factor: 4.342

4.  No long-term difference between fixed and mobile medial unicompartmental arthroplasty.

Authors:  Sebastien Parratte; Vanessa Pauly; Jean-Manuel Aubaniac; Jean-Noel A Argenson
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 4.176

5.  Muscle activity around the knee and gait performance in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty patients: a comparative study on fixed- and mobile-bearing designs.

Authors:  Fabio Catani; Maria Grazia Benedetti; Luca Bianchi; Valentina Marchionni; Sandro Giannini; Alberto Leardini
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2011-08-10       Impact factor: 4.342

6.  Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: medial pain and functional outcome in the medium term.

Authors:  Mark C Edmondson; David Isaac; Malin Wijeratna; Sean Brink; Paul Gibb; Paul Skinner
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2011-10-10       Impact factor: 2.359

Review 7.  Fixed- versus mobile-bearing UKA: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Geert Peersman; Bart Stuyts; Tom Vandenlangenbergh; Philippe Cartier; Peter Fennema
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2014-06-24       Impact factor: 4.342

8.  [Medial unicondylar knee replacement].

Authors:  O Lorbach; D Pape; P Mosser; D Kohn; K Anagnostakos
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2014-10       Impact factor: 1.087

Review 9.  [Implant with a mobile or a fixed bearing in unicompartmental knee joint replacemen].

Authors:  G Matziolis; S Tohtz; B Gengenbach; C Perka
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 1.087

10.  Unicompartmental knee resurfacing: enlarged tibio-femoral contact area and reduced contact stress using novel patient-derived geometries.

Authors:  Nick Steklov; John Slamin; Sudesh Srivastav; Darryl D'Lima
Journal:  Open Biomed Eng J       Date:  2010-03-12
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.