Literature DB >> 14563806

Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in patients sixty years of age or younger.

Donald W Pennington1, John J Swienckowski, William B Lutes, Gregory N Drake.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty has been used to treat elderly, low-demand patients, but the literature is sparse regarding the use of this procedure for younger, active patients. The purpose of the present retrospective study was to evaluate the results of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in younger, more active patients.
METHODS: Forty-one patients underwent forty-six consecutive unicompartmental knee arthroplasties with use of the Miller-Galante system between 1988 and 1996. All of the patients were sixty years of age or younger and all were physically active. The Hospital for Special Surgery knee score and the University of California at Los Angeles activity assessment were used to rate the function and to determine the activity level of each patient, respectively. Serial radiographs were used to evaluate the status of prosthetic fixation, femorotibial alignment, and the progression of arthrosis in the unreplaced compartment. Long-term survivorship was calculated with use of Kaplan-Meier analysis.
RESULTS: The mean duration of follow-up was eleven years. Of the forty-five knees that were available for follow-up, three had been revised. The Hospital for Special Surgery score was excellent for thirty-nine (93%) of the remaining forty-two knees and good for three. The University of California at Los Angeles activity assessment score was 6.6 +/- 1.4 for the knees in which the original prosthesis had been retained and 7.3 +/- 1.5 for those in which it had been revised. Two asymptomatic patients had revision of a modular tibial component because of substantial radiographic evidence of polyethylene wear; one of these patients had exchange of the polyethylene insert and the tibial tray, and the other had exchange of the polyethylene insert only. A third patient underwent revision total knee arthroplasty because of continuing knee pain and a progressive tibial radiolucent line that was >2 mm in width. The average postoperative femorotibial alignment was 5 degrees of valgus. Nine knees had progression of arthritis in the unresurfaced compartment; none of these knees were revised, and none of the patients had deterioration in the Hospital for Special Surgery score. Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated an eleven-year survivorship of 92%.
CONCLUSIONS: At an average duration of follow-up of eleven years, unicompartmental knee arthroplasty was associated with pain relief and excellent function in a cohort of patients who had been sixty years of age or younger and active at the time of surgery.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14563806     DOI: 10.2106/00004623-200310000-00016

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


  41 in total

1.  The impact of a high tibial valgus osteotomy and unicondylar medial arthroplasty on the treatment for knee osteoarthritis: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Gunter Spahn; Gunther O Hofmann; Lars Victor von Engelhardt; Mengxia Li; Henning Neubauer; Hans Michael Klinger
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2011-11-11       Impact factor: 4.342

2.  Functional improvement after unicompartmental knee replacement: a follow-up study with a performance based knee test.

Authors:  Lucas L A Kleijn; Wouter L W van Hemert; Will G H Meijers; Arnold D M Kester; Lukas Lisowski; Bernd Grimm; Ide C Heyligers
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2007-06-23       Impact factor: 4.342

3.  Long-term survivorship and failure modes of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Jared R H Foran; Nicholas M Brown; Craig J Della Valle; Richard A Berger; Jorge O Galante
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 4.176

4.  Long-term results with a lateral unicondylar replacement.

Authors:  Jean-Noël A Argenson; Sebastien Parratte; Antoine Bertani; Xavier Flecher; Jean-Manuel Aubaniac
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2008-06-24       Impact factor: 4.176

5.  Minimally invasive unicompartmental knee replacement: retrospective clinical and radiographic evaluation of 83 patients.

Authors:  Danilo Bruni; Francesco Iacono; Alessandro Russo; Stefano Zaffagnini; Giulio Maria Marcheggiani Muccioli; Simone Bignozzi; Laura Bragonzoni; Maurilio Marcacci
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2009-09-18       Impact factor: 4.342

Review 6.  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

Review 7.  [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

8.  Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in patients aged less than 65.

Authors:  Annette W-Dahl; Otto Robertsson; Lars Lidgren; Lisa Miller; David Davidson; Stephen Graves
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 3.717

9.  Mid-term results and factors affecting outcome of a metal-backed unicompartmental knee design: a case series.

Authors:  Thorsten M Seyler; Michael A Mont; Lawrence P Lai; Jipan Xie; David R Marker; Michael G Zywiel; Peter M Bonutti
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2009-10-26       Impact factor: 2.359

10.  Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty for tricompartment osteoarthritis in octogenarians.

Authors:  Sks Marya; Rajiv Thukral
Journal:  Indian J Orthop       Date:  2009-10       Impact factor: 1.251

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.