Literature DB >> 16260665

Ten-year in vivo wear measurement of a fully congruent mobile bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.

A J Price1, A Short, C Kellett, D Beard, H Gill, H Pandit, C A F Dodd, D W Murray.   

Abstract

Polyethylene particulate wear debris continues to be implicated in the aetiology of aseptic loosening following knee arthroplasty. The Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty employs a spherical femoral component and a fully congruous meniscal bearing to increase contact area and theoretically reduce the potential for polyethylene wear. This study measures the in vivo ten-year linear wear of the device, using a roentgenstereophotogrammetric technique. In this in vivo study, seven medial Oxford unicompartmental prostheses, which had been implanted ten years previously were studied. Stereo pairs of radiographs were acquired for each patient and the films were analysed using a roentgen stereophotogrammetric analysis calibration and a computer-aided design model silhouette-fitting technique. Penetration of the femoral component into the original volume of the bearing was our estimate of linear wear. In addition, eight control patients were examined less than three weeks post-insertion of an Oxford prosthesis, where no wear would be expected. The control group showed no measured wear and suggested a system accuracy of 0.1 mm. At ten years, the mean linear wear rate was 0.02 mm/year. The results from this in vivo study confirm that the device has low ten-year linear wear in clinical practice. This may offer the device a survival advantage in the long term.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16260665     DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.87B11.16325

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br        ISSN: 0301-620X


  16 in total

1.  CORR Insights ®: The Oxford unicompartmental knee fails at a high rate in a high-volume knee practice.

Authors:  John M Clark
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2013-08-24       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  [Unicompartimental joint (Oxford III) with mobile bearing : Minimally invasive implantation of a in the medial compartiment].

Authors:  W Petersen; S Metzlaff; P Forkel; A Achtnich; K Schmoranzer; P Hertel
Journal:  Oper Orthop Traumatol       Date:  2013-10       Impact factor: 1.154

3.  Unicompartmental versus computer-assisted total knee replacement for medial compartment knee arthritis: a matched paired study.

Authors:  A Manzotti; N Confalonieri; C Pullen
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2006-08-02       Impact factor: 3.075

4.  Unicompartmental versus total knee arthroplasty database analysis: is there a winner?

Authors:  Matthew C Lyons; Steven J MacDonald; Lyndsay E Somerville; Douglas D Naudie; Richard W McCalden
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 4.176

5.  Does bearing design influence midterm survivorship of unicompartmental arthroplasty?

Authors:  John-Paul Whittaker; Douglas D R Naudie; James P McAuley; Richard W McCalden; Steven J MacDonald; Robert B Bourne
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2009-07-14       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 6.  [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

7.  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

Review 8.  Fixed- versus mobile-bearing unicondylar knee arthroplasty: are failure modes different?

Authors:  Tao Cheng; Daoyun Chen; Chen Zhu; Xiaoyun Pan; Xin Mao; Yongyuan Guo; Xianlong Zhang
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2012-09-25       Impact factor: 4.342

9.  An autonomous mathematical reconstruction to effectively measure volume loss on retrieved polyethylene tibial inserts.

Authors:  Christopher B Knowlton; Markus A Wimmer
Journal:  J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater       Date:  2012-08-22       Impact factor: 3.368

10.  The learning curve for minimally invasive Oxford phase 3 unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: cumulative summation test for learning curve (LC-CUSUM).

Authors:  Qidong Zhang; Qian Zhang; Wanshou Guo; Zhaohui Liu; Liming Cheng; Debo Yue; Nianfei Zhang
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2014-09-06       Impact factor: 2.359

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.