Literature DB >> 19637502

The Oxford unicompartmental knee prosthesis for the treatment of medial compartment knee disease: 2 to 5 year follow-up.

Snir Heller1, Itay Fenichel, Moshe Salai, Tal Luria, Steven Velkes.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Unicompartmental knee replacement has become a surgical alternative for treating isolated medial or lateral osteoarthritis of the knee or avascular necrosis of the femoral condyls.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the short-term results of the Oxford Phase 3 unicompartmental knee replacement for unicompartmental knee arthrosis or avascular necrosis of the medial femoral condyle.
METHODS: During the period 2003-2005 a total of 59 patients (59 knees) underwent medial Oxford Phase 3 unicompartmental knee replacement in our unit. The patients were interviewed and examined, and standing anteroposterior and lateral X-rays were taken. All patients completed the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Index of Osteoarthritis and the Short Form 12 questionnaire, and the International Knee Society score was evaluated. The data were collected and statistical analysis was performed.
RESULTS: X-rays were performed and scores for the WOMAC and IKS were assessed for 42 patients (31 females, 11 males). At an average of 32 months after surgery the total WOMAC score was 30. The mean SF-12 physical score was 38 and the mean SF-12 mental score was 51. The mean IKS score was 166. Ninety-one percent of the patients had active flexion of 120 degrees or more. Of 59 knees 7 were converted to total knee arthroplasty--all of them within the first 2 years of starting the procedure and all of them in relatively young patients.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite the higher revision rate to TKR in this study, our findings confirm the short-term results reported in other studies of the Oxford medial unicompartmental knee and our early failure rate could be explained by a performance learning curve. This study confirms that this bone-preserving procedure should be considered in end-stage isolated unicompartmental osteoarthritis or avascular necrosis by surgeons who have the adequate training and experience.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19637502

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Isr Med Assoc J            Impact factor:   0.892


  6 in total

1.  The Oxford unicompartmental knee fails at a high rate in a high-volume knee practice.

Authors:  William C Schroer; C Lowry Barnes; Paul Diesfeld; Angela LeMarr; Rachel Ingrassia; Diane J Morton; Mary Reedy
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2013-08-02       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 2.  Causes of revision following Oxford phase 3 unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Seung-Ju Kim; Ricardo Postigo; Sowon Koo; Jong Hun Kim
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2013-09-01       Impact factor: 4.342

3.  Cementless versus cemented Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: early results of a non-designer user group.

Authors:  B Kerens; M G M Schotanus; B Boonen; P Boog; P J Emans; H Lacroix; N P Kort
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2016-05-09       Impact factor: 4.342

4.  Bearing Dislocation and Progression of Osteoarthritis After Mobile-bearing Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty Vary Between Asian and Western Patients: A Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Kyung-Han Ro; Jae-Won Heo; Dae-Hee Lee
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2018-05       Impact factor: 4.176

5.  Femoral component failure in the Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a case report.

Authors:  Kirsten D S Argelo; Mick A Burger; Marco J M Hoozemans; Olivier P P Temmerman
Journal:  J Med Case Rep       Date:  2014-12-11

6.  The results of Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in the United States: a mean ten-year survival analysis.

Authors:  R H Emerson; O Alnachoukati; J Barrington; K Ennin
Journal:  Bone Joint J       Date:  2016-10       Impact factor: 5.082

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.