Literature DB >> 16896865

Minimally invasive Oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. A note of caution!

K L Luscombe1, J Lim, P W Jones, S H White.   

Abstract

We present the peak outcome results of the Oxford medial unicompartmental arthroplasty through a minimally invasive surgical incision. This prospective study included 78 Oxford medial unicompartmental knee replacements in 68 patients. At the 2 year review the patients achieved a mean Oxford Knee Score of 38.3. This was not significantly different to the 2 year results of the phase 2 Oxford knee carried out using a standard parapatellar approach when patients achieved a mean OKS of 36.0. Four unicompartmental knee replacements required revision for unexplained pain, deep infection, aseptic loosening and bearing dislocation. Minimally invasive joint replacement is attractive to both patients and surgeons, but is technically demanding with complications inherent to limited access.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16896865      PMCID: PMC2267606          DOI: 10.1007/s00264-006-0202-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int Orthop        ISSN: 0341-2695            Impact factor:   3.075


  15 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.  Rapid recovery after oxford unicompartmental arthroplasty through a short incision.

Authors:  A J Price; J Webb; H Topf; C A Dodd; J W Goodfellow; D W Murray
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 4.757

3.  Appropriate questionnaires for knee arthroplasty. Results of a survey of 3600 patients from The Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Registry.

Authors:  M J Dunbar; O Robertsson; L Ryd; L Lidgren
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2001-04

4.  Specificity of the Oxford knee status questionnaire. The effect of disease of the hip or lumbar spine on patients' perception of knee disability.

Authors:  W G Harcourt; S H White; P Jones
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2001-04

5.  The Oxford medial unicompartmental arthroplasty: a ten-year survival study.

Authors:  D W Murray; J W Goodfellow; J J O'Connor
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  1998-11

6.  Perceptions of outcomes after unicompartmental and total knee replacements.

Authors:  A E Weale; O A Halabi; P W Jones; S H White
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2001-01       Impact factor: 4.176

7.  The long-term results of low-friction arthroplasty of the hip performed as a primary intervention.

Authors:  J Charnley
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  1972-02

8.  Osteoarthrosis of the knee. A radiographic investigation.

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

9.  The need for a dual rating system in total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  A König; M Scheidler; C Rader; J Eulert
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1997-12       Impact factor: 4.176

10.  The Swedish knee arthroplasty register. A nation-wide study of 30,003 knees 1976-1992.

Authors:  K Knutson; S Lewold; O Robertsson; L Lidgren
Journal:  Acta Orthop Scand       Date:  1994-08
View more
  22 in total

1.  Unicompartmental knee replacements with Miller-Galante prosthesis: two to 16-year follow-up of a single surgeon series.

Authors:  Joby John; C Mauffrey; Peter May
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2010-04-25       Impact factor: 3.075

2.  Survival analysis and functional outcome of the Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement up to 11 years follow up at a District General Hospital.

Authors:  M Edmondson; A Atrey; D East; N Ellens; K Miles; R Goddard; H Apthorp; A Butler-Manuel
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2015-05-18

3.  The clinical outcome of revision knee replacement after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty versus primary total knee arthroplasty: 8-17 years follow-up study of 49 patients.

Authors:  Jaakko Järvenpää; Jukka Kettunen; Hannu Miettinen; Heikki Kröger
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2009-05-27       Impact factor: 3.075

Review 4.  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

5.  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

6.  [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

Review 7.  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

8.  Outcome after high tibial open-wedge osteotomy: a retrospective evaluation of 533 patients.

Authors:  Stephanie Floerkemeier; Alex E Staubli; Steffen Schroeter; Sabine Goldhahn; Philipp Lobenhoffer
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2012-06-29       Impact factor: 4.342

9.  Clinical results of unicompartmental arthroplasty for knee osteoarthritis using a tibial component with screw fixation.

Authors:  Tomihisa Koshino; Koji Sato; Yusuke Umemoto; Yasushi Akamatsu; Ken Kumagai; Tomoyuki Saito
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2014-10-24       Impact factor: 3.075

Review 10.  [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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.