Literature DB >> 15351411

Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: an intermediate report of survivorship after the introduction of a new system with analysis of failures.

Parminder J S Jeer1, Gregory C R Keene, Paul Gill.   

Abstract

We describe the outcome of a series of 66 consecutive porous coated low contact stress (LCS) unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) cases performed in 52 patients for osteoarthritis (OA) by a single surgeon. Both survival, using the endpoint of revision for any cause, and knee function, using the Oxford knee score (OKS) as a validated outcome measure, were established in a retrospective review. At an average postoperative follow-up period of 5.9 years (range 5.1-6.6), there were 8 knees in patients who had died and 58 knees in those who were still living. We established the status of all knees, and prosthesis survival at 5 years was 89.7% (95% confidence interval, 81.6% to 97.7%). Technical errors were responsible for four of six failures and included progression of lateral compartment OA due to overcorrection, a medial tibial stress fracture due to poor pin placement, and a case where cement was required and poor cementing technique lead to early tibial component loosening. In the remaining 52 knees, the average preoperative OKS had improved significantly (p<0.0001) from 37.0 (range, 17-49) to a postoperative score of 20.5 (range, 13-32). We conclude that the functional results following UKA compare favourably to total knee arthropasty (TKA); however, the survivorship of this series does not match that of published reports of TKA. The introduction of a new system of UKA includes the risk of early failures due to surgeon error, even when a surgeon is competent in UKA, warranting careful surveillance during this period.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15351411     DOI: 10.1016/j.knee.2004.06.001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Knee        ISSN: 0968-0160            Impact factor:   2.199


  11 in total

1.  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

2.  Correlation of positioning and clinical results in Oxford UKA.

Authors:  Michael Clarius; Christian Hauck; Joern B Seeger; Maria Pritsch; Christian Merle; Peter R Aldinger
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2009-10-09       Impact factor: 3.075

Review 3.  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

4.  Finite element analysis of malposition in bi-unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Nicola Armillotta; Edoardo Bori; Bernardo Innocenti
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2022-10-20       Impact factor: 2.928

5.  Lateral unicompartmental knee replacement: fixed or mobile bearing?

Authors:  M C Forster; A J Bauze; G C R Keene
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2007-06-06       Impact factor: 4.342

6.  Tibial component alignment and risk of loosening in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a radiographic and radiostereometric study.

Authors:  P Barbadoro; A Ensini; A Leardini; M d'Amato; A Feliciangeli; A Timoncini; F Amadei; C Belvedere; S Giannini
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2014-06-28       Impact factor: 4.342

7.  The trends in robotic-assisted knee arthroplasty: A statewide database study.

Authors:  Qais Naziri; Steven A Burekhovich; Patrick J Mixa; Robert Pivec; Jared M Newman; Neil V Shah; Preetesh D Patel; Akhilesh Sastry
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2019-05-03

8.  Accuracy of tibial component positioning in the robotic arm assisted versus conventional unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Jai Thilak; Mohan Thadi; Prajwal P Mane; Anubhav Sharma; Vipin Mohan; Balu C Babu
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2020-08-31

9.  Analysis of Oxford medial unicompartmental knee replacement using the minimally invasive technique in patients aged 60 and above: an independent prospective series.

Authors:  Nanne P Kort; Jos J A M van Raay; John Cheung; Casper Jolink; Robbie Deutman
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2007-08-08       Impact factor: 4.342

10.  Metal backed fixed-bearing unicondylar knee arthroplasties using minimal invasive surgery: a promising outcome analysis of 132 cases.

Authors:  Joel Baur; Lukas Zwicky; Michael Tobias Hirschmann; Thomas Ilchmann; Martin Clauss
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2015-07-31       Impact factor: 2.362

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.