Literature DB >> 12473714

Modern unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with cement: a three to ten-year follow-up study.

Jean-Noël A Argenson1, Yamina Chevrol-Benkeddache, Jean-Manuel Aubaniac.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Unicompartmental arthroplasty is a treatment alternative when only one compartment of the knee is affected with arthritis, but the reported results of this procedure have been variable. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the results of a modern unicompartmental knee arthroplasty performed with use of a cemented metal-backed prosthesis and surgical instrumentation comparable with that used for total knee replacement.
METHODS: The indications for the procedure were osteonecrosis or osteoarthritis associated with full-thickness loss of cartilage that was limited to one tibiofemoral compartment as evaluated on standing and stress radiographs. One hundred and sixty consecutive cemented metal-backed Miller-Galante prostheses in 147 patients were evaluated after a mean duration of follow-up of sixty-six months (range, thirty-six to 112 months). The mean age of the patients at the time of the index procedure was sixty-six years.
RESULTS: Three knees were revised because of progression of osteoarthritis in the patellofemoral joint (two knees) or the lateral tibiofemoral compartment (one knee). Two knees had revision of the polyethylene liner. The average Hospital for Special Surgery knee score improved from 59 points preoperatively to 96 points at the time of the review. According to Kaplan-Meier analysis, the ten-year survival rate (with twenty-nine knees at risk) was 94% +/- 3% with revision for any reason or radiographic loosening as the end point.
CONCLUSIONS: A modern unicompartmental knee arthroplasty is a valid alternative for patients with unicompartmental tibiofemoral noninflammatory disease. The patient selection must be strict with regard to the status of the patellofemoral joint. The preoperative planning includes stress radiographs to assess the correction of the deformity and the status of the uninvolved compartment. Continued long-term follow-up is necessary to evaluate long-term polyethylene wear.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12473714

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am        ISSN: 0021-9355            Impact factor:   5.284


  63 in total

1.  Does primary or secondary chondrocalcinosis influence long-term survivorship of unicompartmental arthroplasty?

Authors:  Philippe Hernigou; Walter Pascale; Valerio Pascale; Yasuhiro Homma; Alexandre Poignard
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2011-12-13       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  [The minimally invasive unicompartmental knee system "Preservation"First clinical results and analysis of complications].

Authors:  D P König; F Popken; W Herzberg; P Eysel
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 1.087

3.  Unicompartmental knee replacements with Miller-Galante prosthesis: two to 16-year follow-up of a single surgeon series.

Authors:  Joby John; C Mauffrey; Peter May
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2010-04-25       Impact factor: 3.075

Review 4.  High tibial osteotomy versus unicompartmental knee arthroplasty for medial compartment arthrosis of the knee: a review of the literature.

Authors:  Federico Dettoni; Davide Edoardo Bonasia; Filippo Castoldi; Matteo Bruzzone; Davide Blonna; Roberto Rossi
Journal:  Iowa Orthop J       Date:  2010

5.  Overstuffed medial compartment after mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  B Kerens; N P Kort
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2010-12-11       Impact factor: 4.342

6.  Tibial baseplate positioning in robotic-assisted and conventional unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Katherine P MacCallum; Jonathan R Danoff; Jeffrey A Geller
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2015-10-06

7.  Is unicompartmental arthroplasty an acceptable option for spontaneous osteonecrosis of the knee?

Authors:  Danilo Bruni; Francesco Iacono; Giovanni Raspugli; Stefano Zaffagnini; Maurilio Marcacci
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2012-01-26       Impact factor: 4.176

8.  [Minimally invasive implantation in unicondylar arthroplasty].

Authors:  R Hube; M Keim
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 1.087

9.  [In vivo biomechanics of unicondylar knee replacement performed using minimally invasive technique].

Authors:  J-N A Argenson; R D Komistek; S Akizuki
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 1.087

10.  Revision of 33 unicompartmental knee prostheses using total knee arthroplasty: strategy and results.

Authors:  Dominique Saragaglia; Gilles Estour; Charbel Nemer; Pierre-Emmanuel Colle
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2008-06-18       Impact factor: 3.075

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.