Literature DB >> 19553128

Early failure of a unicompartmental knee arthroplasty design with an all-polyethylene tibial component.

Cesar L Saenz1, Mike S McGrath, David R Marker, Thorsten M Seyler, Michael A Mont, Peter M Bonutti.   

Abstract

Refined prosthetic designs and surgical techniques for unicompartmental knee arthroplasty have recently been associated with improved outcomes. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the clinical and radiographic outcomes of the EIUS unicompartmental design, which has an all-polyethylene tibial component, and to compare these outcomes with published reports of other unicompartmental prostheses. Between February 2002 and March 2005, 113 patients (144 knees) underwent a medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, all performed by a single surgeon who used the EIUS prosthesis. At a mean follow-up of 36 months (range, 24-54 months), the mean Knee Society objective and functional scores improved from 55 points (range, 31-77 points) and 49 points (range, 35-60 points) to 92 points (range, 45-100 points) and 89 points (range, 10-100 points), respectively. The implant survival rate was 89%, with 16 knees either revised or scheduled for revision. The reasons for revision included aseptic loosening of the tibial component (eight knees), progressive symptomatic patellofemoral disease (four knees), and tibial component subsidence (four knees). Multiple regression analysis revealed that age, gender, and body mass index were not significantly correlated with success or failure of this design, although nine of the 16 patients who required revision were obese. This prosthesis was associated with higher revision rates than components which utilize metal-backed implants. Further modifications in the design, indications, or technique may be necessary to improve outcomes of this unicompartmental knee arthroplasty system.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19553128     DOI: 10.1016/j.knee.2009.05.007

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Knee        ISSN: 0968-0160            Impact factor:   2.199


  13 in total

1.  Early migration of the cemented tibial component of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a radiostereometry study.

Authors:  Andrea Ensini; Paolo Barbadoro; Alberto Leardini; Fabio Catani; Sandro Giannini
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2012-06-04       Impact factor: 4.342

2.  [Revision rates in journal publications on joint prostheses with noticeably high failure rates in register data sets].

Authors:  G Labek; S Todorov; A Lübbeke-Wolff; B Haderer; S Krivanek
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 1.087

3.  [Medial unicondylar knee replacement].

Authors:  O Lorbach; D Pape; P Mosser; D Kohn; K Anagnostakos
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2014-10       Impact factor: 1.087

4.  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

5.  Functionally graded additive manufacturing for orthopedic applications.

Authors:  Saquib Rouf; Abrar Malik; Ankush Raina; Mir Irfan Ul Haq; Nida Naveed; Ali Zolfagharian; Mahdi Bodaghi
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2022-07-03

Review 6.  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

7.  Implant orientation accuracy of a hand-held robotic partial knee replacement system over conventional technique in a cadaveric test.

Authors:  Rahul Khare; Branislav Jaramaz; Brian Hamlin; Kenneth L Urish
Journal:  Comput Assist Surg (Abingdon)       Date:  2018-12       Impact factor: 1.787

8.  Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: all-poly versus metal-backed tibial component-a long-term follow-up study.

Authors:  Vincenzo Sessa; Umberto Celentano
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2021-04-20       Impact factor: 3.075

9.  Cemented versus Uncemented Oxford Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: Is There a Difference?

Authors:  Burak Akan; Dogac Karaguven; Berk Guclu; Tugrul Yildirim; Alper Kaya; Mehmet Armangil; Ilker Cetin
Journal:  Adv Orthop       Date:  2013-12-09

10.  A novel standardized algorithm using SPECT/CT evaluating unhappy patients after unicondylar knee arthroplasty--a combined analysis of tracer uptake distribution and component position.

Authors:  Basil Suter; Enrique Testa; Patrick Stämpfli; Praveen Konala; Helmut Rasch; Niklaus F Friederich; Michael T Hirschmann
Journal:  BMC Med Imaging       Date:  2015-03-20       Impact factor: 1.930

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.