Literature DB >> 19333578

Early failure of a mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee replacement.

Mateen H Arastu1, J Vijayaraghavan, H Chissell, J B Hull, J H Newman, J R Robinson.   

Abstract

Concerned by a perceived high revision rate, we retrospectively reviewed the survivorship of a series of 43 cemented, medial, mobile-bearing Preservation unicompartmental knee replacements implanted during a 2-year period at a single institution. The initial post-operative AP and lateral radiographs were independently assessed to test the hypothesis that suboptimal implantation of the prosthesis was responsible for early failure. An X-ray scoring system based on the criteria for assessing the Oxford mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee replacement was devised. The components of this score included assessment of prosthesis alignment, sizing and cementation. Nine (21%) LCS Preservation mobile-bearings prostheses had required revision at a mean of 22 months post-implantation. The commonest causes for failure were pain (44%) and tibial component loosening (33%). Analysis of post-operative radiographs showed no difference (n.s.) between the compound error scores for the revised and the surviving prostheses. No particular surgical error was identifiable leading to subsequent need for revision. The high failure rates shown in this study have led us to cease using this implant. The clinical relevance of this study is that the captive running track of the LCS mobile-bearing prosthesis may over constrain the meniscal component leading to early failure.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19333578     DOI: 10.1007/s00167-009-0779-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc        ISSN: 0942-2056            Impact factor:   4.342


  32 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.  Mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a 2-center study with an 11-year (mean) follow-up.

Authors:  Peter A Keblish; Jean L Briard
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 4.757

3.  Survivorship of the St Georg Sled medial unicompartmental knee replacement beyond ten years.

Authors:  R G Steele; S Hutabarat; R L Evans; C E Ackroyd; J H Newman
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2006-09

4.  Unicompartmental knee replacement: a comparison of constrained and unconstrained designs.

Authors:  W A Hodge; H P Chandler
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1992-07       Impact factor: 5.284

5.  Failure mechanisms after unicompartmental and tricompartmental primary knee replacement with cement.

Authors:  O Furnes; B Espehaug; S A Lie; S E Vollset; L B Engesaeter; L I Havelin
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 5.284

6.  Early failure of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty leading to revision.

Authors:  Thomas J Aleto; Michael E Berend; Merrill A Ritter; Philip M Faris; R Michael Meneghini
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 4.757

7.  Unicompartmental or total knee replacement? Five-year results of a prospective, randomised trial of 102 osteoarthritic knees with unicompartmental arthritis.

Authors:  J H Newman; C E Ackroyd; N A Shah
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  1998-09

8.  Revision of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: outcome in 1,135 cases from the Swedish Knee Arthroplasty study.

Authors:  S Lewold; O Robertsson; K Knutson; L Lidgren
Journal:  Acta Orthop Scand       Date:  1998-10

9.  Results of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty at a minimum of ten years of follow-up.

Authors:  Richard A Berger; R Michael Meneghini; Joshua J Jacobs; Mitchell B Sheinkop; Craig J Della Valle; Aaron G Rosenberg; Jorge O Galante
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 5.284

Review 10.  Unicompartmental mobile-bearing knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Roger H Emerson
Journal:  Instr Course Lect       Date:  2005
View more
  4 in total

1.  Analysis of different bicruciate-retaining tibial prosthesis design using a three dimension finite element model.

Authors:  Peiheng He; Xing Li; Shuai Huang; Minghao Liu; Weizhi Chen; Dongliang Xu
Journal:  Am J Transl Res       Date:  2017-05-15       Impact factor: 4.060

Review 2.  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

3.  The risk of bearing dislocation in lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty using a mobile biconcave design.

Authors:  Sebastiaan Schelfaut; Lucas Beckers; Peter Verdonk; Johan Bellemans; Jan Victor
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2012-08-28       Impact factor: 4.342

4.  Better quality of life after medial versus lateral unicondylar knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Thoralf R Liebs; Wolfgang Herzberg
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2013-04-09       Impact factor: 4.176

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.