Literature DB >> 18534528

The short-term results of 3 common UKA implants during different periods in Sweden.

Otto Robertsson1, Lars Lidgren.   

Abstract

We studied 13,299 operations of 3 common unicompartmental implants inserted during 1984 to 2004 and compared their cumulative revision rate during different periods, as well as whether minimally invasive surgery (MIS) had been used. In this way, we tried to evaluate how the introduction of implants and approaches affected the short-term results. The oldest implant, the Link, had stable results over time. However, when used with MIS without adequate instruments or training, the results deteriorated. The initial Oxford results were disappointing (phase I and early phase II models). However, with time, the results improved substantially, even when the phase III version using MIS was introduced. For the Miller/Galante, there was significant improvement with time, and MIS was not found to affect the short-term results.

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18534528     DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2007.07.011

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Arthroplasty        ISSN: 0883-5403            Impact factor:   4.757


  10 in total

1.  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

2.  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

3.  Lateral unicompartmental knee replacement: a systematic review of reasons for failure.

Authors:  Lukas Ernstbrunner; Mohamed A Imam; Octavian Andronic; Tabea Perz; Karl Wieser; Sandro F Fucentese
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2017-10-13       Impact factor: 3.075

Review 4.  [Partial replacement of the knee joint with patient-specific instruments and implants (ConforMIS iUni, iDuo)].

Authors:  J Beckmann; A Steinert; C Zilkens; A Zeh; C Schnurr; M Schmitt-Sody; M Gebauer
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2016-04       Impact factor: 1.087

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

6.  Long-term clinical results of the Oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Numa Mercier; Simon Wimsey; Dominique Saragaglia
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2009-10-17       Impact factor: 3.075

Review 7.  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

8.  Joint registry approach for identification of outlier prostheses.

Authors:  Richard N de Steiger; Lisa N Miller; David C Davidson; Philip Ryan; Stephen E Graves
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2013-08       Impact factor: 3.717

9.  Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty has higher revisions than total knee arthroplasty at long term follow-up: a registry study on 6453 prostheses.

Authors:  A Di Martino; B Bordini; F Barile; C Ancarani; V Digennaro; C Faldini
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2020-08-01       Impact factor: 4.342

10.  Surgery for knee osteoarthritis in younger patients.

Authors:  Annette W-Dahl; Otto Robertsson; Lars Lidgren
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 3.717

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.