Literature DB >> 15948449

Unicompartmental mobile-bearing knee arthroplasty.

Roger H Emerson1.   

Abstract

Two diferent mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee replacement designs have been available since the late 1970s. The primary difference between these two designs is that one has a constrained bearing in a track and the other has a freely moving bearing. Both implants are currently indicated for the treatment of patients with medial unicompartmental osteoarthritis and are available for use in the United States. The benefits of such designs are restoration of normal knee joint kinematics and protection of the polyethylene by reduction of high-contact stresses that occur with nonmobile-bearing designs. Experience has shown that careful patient selection and careful surgical technique both are factors critical to the success of mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee implants. The most important patient selection criteria have proved to be the diagnosis of anteromedial osteoarthritis with a passively correctable varus deformity and intact anterior cruciate ligament. Precise instrumentation is necessary to consistently balance and align a mobile-bearing implant. Ten-year survivorship data for freely mobile-bearing implants are available from multiple centers that show survivorship rates ranging from 85% to 98%, which are comparable to survivorship rates for total knee replacement.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15948449

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Instr Course Lect        ISSN: 0065-6895


  6 in total

1.  Medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in patients with spontaneous osteonecrosis of the knee.

Authors:  Won-Sik Choy; Kap Jung Kim; Sang Ki Lee; Dae Suk Yang; Choon Myeon Kim; Ju Sang Park
Journal:  Clin Orthop Surg       Date:  2011-12-01

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.  Mid-term results of oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Won-Sik Choy; Kap Jung Kim; Sang Ki Lee; Dae Suk Yang; Neung Ki Lee
Journal:  Clin Orthop Surg       Date:  2011-08-19

5.  Bearing Dislocation and Progression of Osteoarthritis After Mobile-bearing Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty Vary Between Asian and Western Patients: A Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Kyung-Han Ro; Jae-Won Heo; Dae-Hee Lee
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2018-05       Impact factor: 4.176

6.  Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty.

Authors:  Kyung Tae Kim
Journal:  Knee Surg Relat Res       Date:  2018-03-01
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.