Literature DB >> 15895294

The Oxford unicompartmental knee prosthesis: an independent 10-year survival analysis.

Peter Vorlat1, Guy Putzeys, Dominique Cottenie, Tom Van Isacker, Nicole Pouliart, Frank Handelberg, Pierre-Paul Casteleyn, Filip Gheysen, René Verdonk.   

Abstract

One hundred forty-nine medial prostheses were implanted in 140 patients between 1988 and 1996. After a mean of 67 months 28 patients had died, without the need for revision. Seventeen prostheses were lost to follow-up. Revision surgery using a total knee prosthesis was performed in 16 cases. In four others, a lateral prosthesis was implanted subsequently to a medial one. One of these four was revised to a total knee prosthesis 6 years later. In another four cases, late complications of the meniscal bearing were treated with replacement of this bearing. The surviving prostheses were seen back after a mean of 126 months. The cumulative survival rate at 10 years was 82% for the whole population and 84% when knees with a previous high tibial osteotomy were excluded. Since these results compare poorly to the survival of total knee arthroplasty, this prosthesis is not the first-choice implant. Because it preserves a maximum of bone stock and is revised to a total prosthesis almost without difficulty, it is the first-choice implant for medial unicompartmental osteoarthritis in patients younger than 65. Further research is mandatory to confirm that this prosthesis very rarely needs revision in patients older than 75. It should not be used in osteotomized knees.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15895294     DOI: 10.1007/s00167-005-0621-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc        ISSN: 0942-2056            Impact factor:   4.342


  34 in total

1.  Oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. A survival analysis of an independent series.

Authors:  U C Svärd; A J Price
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2001-03

2.  Long-term followup of anatomic graduated components posterior cruciate-retaining total knee replacement.

Authors:  M A Ritter; M E Berend; J B Meding; E M Keating; P M Faris; B M Crites
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2001-07       Impact factor: 4.176

3.  High tibial osteotomy with a calibrated osteotomy guide, rigid internal fixation, and early motion. Long-term follow-up.

Authors:  A Billings; D F Scott; M P Camargo; A A Hofmann
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2000-01       Impact factor: 5.284

4.  The anterior cruciate ligament in knee arthroplasty. A risk-factor with unconstrained meniscal prostheses.

Authors:  J Goodfellow; J O'Connor
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1992-03       Impact factor: 4.176

5.  Posterior stabilized prosthesis. Results after follow-up of nine to twelve years.

Authors:  S H Stern; J N Insall
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1992-08       Impact factor: 5.284

6.  The Oxford knee replacement. A review from an independent centre.

Authors:  D S Barrett; S P Biswas; R P MacKenney
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  1990-09

7.  Dome osteotomy of the tibia for osteoarthritis of the knee.

Authors:  E Verhaven; P P Casteleyn; P Haentjens; F Handelberg; H De Boeck; F Van Betten; P Opdecam
Journal:  Acta Orthop Belg       Date:  1989       Impact factor: 0.500

8.  Survivorship analysis and results of total condylar knee arthroplasty. Eight- to 11-year follow-up period.

Authors:  C S Ranawat; O Boachie-Adjei
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1988-01       Impact factor: 4.176

9.  Osteoarthrosis of the knee. A radiographic investigation.

Authors:  S Ahlbäck
Journal:  Acta Radiol Diagn (Stockh)       Date:  1968

10.  Long-term results of the total condylar knee arthroplasty. A 15-year survivorship study.

Authors:  C S Ranawat; W F Flynn; S Saddler; K K Hansraj; M J Maynard
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1993-01       Impact factor: 4.176

View more
  27 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.  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

3.  The Oxford unicompartmental knee fails at a high rate in a high-volume knee practice.

Authors:  William C Schroer; C Lowry Barnes; Paul Diesfeld; Angela LeMarr; Rachel Ingrassia; Diane J Morton; Mary Reedy
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2013-08-02       Impact factor: 4.176

4.  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 5.  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

6.  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

7.  Minimally invasive Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty ensures excellent functional outcome and high survivorship in the long term.

Authors:  Tilman Walker; Pit Hetto; Thomas Bruckner; Tobias Gotterbarm; Christian Merle; Benjamin Panzram; Moritz M Innmann; Babak Moradi
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2018-11-21       Impact factor: 4.342

8.  Survivorship and patient satisfaction of robotic-assisted medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty at a minimum two-year follow-up.

Authors:  Andrew D Pearle; Jelle P van der List; Lily Lee; Thomas M Coon; Todd A Borus; Martin W Roche
Journal:  Knee       Date:  2017-02-06       Impact factor: 2.199

Review 9.  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

10.  Patient-specific positioning guides do not consistently achieve the planned implant position in UKA.

Authors:  Justin A M J van Leeuwen; Stephan M Röhrl
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2016-08-12       Impact factor: 4.342

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.