Literature DB >> 16924172

Survival of medial unicondylar arthroplasties placed by one surgeon 1984-1998.

Thomas H Eickmann1, Matthew B Collier, Fumio Sukezaki, James P McAuley, Gerard A Engh.   

Abstract

Unicondylar arthroplasty survival rates have varied widely. Implant- and patient-specific factors may be contributory. One surgeon placed 411 medial compartment arthroplasties of 12 designs from 1984 to 1998. In most cases, the fixed bearing tibial component was placed with cement and featured gamma-sterilized-in-air polyethylene and a metal backing. Tibial component initial thickness averaged 8.5 +/- 1.4 mm. Polyethylene shelf age averaged 1.3 +/- 1.2 years. Age and weight at arthroplasty averaged 67 +/- 8 years and 83 +/- 15 kg, respectively. Survival (no revision) at 9 years was 80%. Revision was more common in younger patients, in those with a thinner tibial component or longer polyethylene shelf age, and when some designs were used rather than others; weight and gender were not associated with revision. Nine-year survival improved to 94% when tibial component thickness was > 7 mm and polyethylene shelf age was < 1 year (154 knees). Per our experience, placement of a thin or shelf-aged gamma-irradiated-in-air polyethylene bearing into a young or active subject could explain most failures of unicondylar arthroplasties done in the 1980s and 1990s. Unicondylar patients of that era who were fortunate enough to avoid a thin or aged oxidation-prone polyethylene bearing probably have enjoyed superior outcomes.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16924172     DOI: 10.1097/01.blo.0000238793.74843.dc

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


  8 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.  Long-term results with a lateral unicondylar replacement.

Authors:  Jean-Noël A Argenson; Sebastien Parratte; Antoine Bertani; Xavier Flecher; Jean-Manuel Aubaniac
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2008-06-24       Impact factor: 4.176

3.  Robot-assisted vs. conventional unicompartmental knee arthroplasty : Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Jun Fu; Yuning Wang; Xiang Li; Baozhan Yu; Ming Ni; Wei Chai; Libo Hao; Jiying Chen
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2018-12       Impact factor: 1.087

4.  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

5.  Do fresh osteochondral allografts successfully treat femoral condyle lesions?

Authors:  Yadin D Levy; Simon Görtz; Pamela A Pulido; Julie C McCauley; William D Bugbee
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 4.176

6.  A novel handheld robotic-assisted system for unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: surgical technique and early survivorship.

Authors:  Andrew K Battenberg; Nathan A Netravali; Jess H Lonner
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2019-02-14

7.  Mid-term results and factors affecting outcome of a metal-backed unicompartmental knee design: a case series.

Authors:  Thorsten M Seyler; Michael A Mont; Lawrence P Lai; Jipan Xie; David R Marker; Michael G Zywiel; Peter M Bonutti
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2009-10-26       Impact factor: 2.359

8.  Tissue sparing surgery in knee reconstruction: unicompartmental (UKA), patellofemoral (PFA), UKA + PFA, bi-unicompartmental (Bi-UKA) arthroplasties.

Authors:  N Confalonieri; A Manzotti; F Montironi; C Pullen
Journal:  J Orthop Traumatol       Date:  2008-07-08
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.