Literature DB >> 16906108

The unicompartmental knee: design and technical considerations in minimizing wear.

Jean-Noël A Argenson1, Sebastien Parratte.   

Abstract

Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty is an alternative to total knee arthroplasty for patients with unicompartmental tibiofemoral noninflammatory disease. Careful patient selection and newer instrumentation has reduced the progression of arthrosis in the other compartment and tibial loosening, leaving polyethylene wear as the predominant failure mechanism in more contemporary designs. Increased wear increases the debris volume at the bone-implant interface, and wear particles will generate osteolysis leading to component loosening and unreplaced compartment degeneration. The design-related factors that minimize wear include a polyethylene thickness of greater than 6 mm, a limited shelf age, and a design allowing large areas of contact mediolaterally and anteroposteriorly. Congruous mobile-bearing implants could play a substantial role in reducing wear if they are not associated with dislocation and nonreproducible surgical techniques. Important technical factors include accurate instrumentation avoiding component-to-component malposition and edge loading, allowing slight under-correction of the pre- operative deformity. The patient-related factors include a weight limit, a functional anterior cruciate ligament, and a correctable frontal deformity. Continued research including that related to cross-linking and sterilization methods is mandatory to improve polyethylene strength. A better understanding of kinematics and contact forces may provide long-term survival and patient satisfaction after unicompartmental arthroplasty.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16906108     DOI: 10.1097/01.blo.0000229358.19867.60

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res        ISSN: 0009-921X            Impact factor:   4.176


  27 in total

1.  [In vivo biomechanics of unicondylar knee replacement performed using minimally invasive technique].

Authors:  J-N A Argenson; R D Komistek; S Akizuki
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 1.087

2.  The immediate effect of navigation on implant accuracy in primary mini-invasive unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Ralf E Rosenberger; Christian Fink; Sebastian Quirbach; Rene Attal; Katja Tecklenburg; Christian Hoser
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2008-09-20       Impact factor: 4.342

3.  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

4.  The coronal alignment after medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty can be predicted: usefulness of full-length valgus stress radiography for evaluating correctability.

Authors:  Yasutaka Tashiro; Shuichi Matsuda; Ken Okazaki; Hideki Mizu-Uchi; Umito Kuwashima; Yukihide Iwamoto
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2014-08-26       Impact factor: 4.342

5.  Unicompartmental knee replacement provides early clinical and functional improvement stabilizing over time.

Authors:  Alfredo Schiavone Panni; Michele Vasso; Simone Cerciello; Alessandro Felici
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2011-07-12       Impact factor: 4.342

6.  Good survivorship of all-polyethylene tibial component UKA at long-term follow-up.

Authors:  Danilo Bruni; Michele Gagliardi; Ibrahim Akkawi; Giovanni Francesco Raspugli; Simone Bignozzi; Tedi Marko; Laura Bragonzoni; Alberto Grassi; Maurilio Marcacci
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2014-10-09       Impact factor: 4.342

7.  An uncommon cause of cemented unicompartmental knee arthroplasty failure: fracture of metallic components.

Authors:  Alfonso Manzotti; Cesare Chemello; Chris Pullen; Pietro Cerveri; Norberto Confalonieri
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2012-05-26       Impact factor: 4.342

8.  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

9.  Results of a French multicentre retrospective experience with four hundred and eighteen failed unicondylar knee arthroplasties.

Authors:  Dominique Saragaglia; Michel Bonnin; David Dejour; Gérard Deschamps; Christophe Chol; Benoit Chabert; Ramsay Refaie
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2013-05-29       Impact factor: 3.075

10.  Minimally invasive Oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in young patients.

Authors:  Marcus R Streit; Julia Streit; Tilman Walker; Thomas Bruckner; J Philippe Kretzer; Volker Ewerbeck; Christian Merle; Peter R Aldinger; Tobias Gotterbarm
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2015-05-10       Impact factor: 4.342

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.