Literature DB >> 20130835

Sagittal flexion angle of the femoral component in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: is it same for both medial and lateral UKAs?

Elcil Kaya Bicer1, Elvire Servien, Sebastien Lustig, Guillaume Demey, Tarik Ait Si Selmi, Philippe Neyret.   

Abstract

The flexion of the femoral component in the sagittal plane in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) was analyzed radiographically in this study. Thirty medial and 30 lateral UKAs were included. The sagittal flexion angles were measured both relative to the posterior femoral cortex and midline sagittal distal femoral axis. Both of the measurement methods revealed that the femoral components were inserted in a significantly more flexed fashion in the medial UKA group. Neither preoperative nor postoperative tibial slope did have any significant effect on the sagittal flexion angle. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study demonstrating an angular difference in the sagittal flexion of the femoral components between medial and lateral UKAs.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20130835     DOI: 10.1007/s00167-010-1063-y

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


  25 in total

1.  Posterior slope of the tibial implant and the outcome of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Philippe Hernigou; Gerard Deschamps
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 5.284

Review 2.  Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: troubleshooting implant positioning and technical failures.

Authors:  David C Markel; Kate Sutton
Journal:  J Knee Surg       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 2.757

3.  Accuracy of implantation of components in the Oxford knee using the minimally invasive approach.

Authors:  David Shakespeare; Michael Ledger; Vera Kinzel
Journal:  Knee       Date:  2005-06-24       Impact factor: 2.199

4.  Three-dimensional analysis of alignment error in using femoral intramedullary guides in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Burton Ma; William Long; John F Rudan; Randy E Ellis
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 4.757

5.  10-year survivorship of metal-backed, unicompartmental arthroplasty.

Authors:  J M Bert
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  1998-12       Impact factor: 4.757

6.  The Oxford medial unicompartmental arthroplasty: a ten-year survival study.

Authors:  D W Murray; J W Goodfellow; J J O'Connor
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  1998-11

7.  Unicondylar knee replacement.

Authors:  J Insall; P Walker
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1976-10       Impact factor: 4.176

8.  Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Ten- to 13-year follow-up study.

Authors:  L Marmor
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1988-01       Impact factor: 4.176

9.  Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Clinical experience at 6- to 10-year followup.

Authors:  R A Berger; D D Nedeff; R M Barden; M M Sheinkop; J J Jacobs; A G Rosenberg; J O Galante
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1999-10       Impact factor: 4.176

10.  Unicondylar knee arthroplasty. An evaluation of selection criteria.

Authors:  S H Stern; M W Becker; J N Insall
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1993-01       Impact factor: 4.176

View more
  7 in total

Review 1.  Lateral uni-compartmental knee replacement: current concepts and future directions.

Authors:  E Servien; A Merini; S Lustig; P Neyret
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2013-07-06       Impact factor: 4.342

2.  Anteroposterior and rotational stability in fixed and mobile bearing unicondylar knee arthroplasty: a cadaveric study using the robotic force sensor system.

Authors:  Roland Becker; Christian Mauer; Christian Stärke; Mathias Brosz; Thore Zantop; Christoph H Lohmann; Martin Schulze
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2012-08-07       Impact factor: 4.342

3.  Sagittal placement of the femoral component in total knee arthroplasty predicts knee flexion contracture at one-year follow-up.

Authors:  Sebastien Lustig; Corey J Scholes; Tim J Stegeman; Sam Oussedik; Myles R J Coolican; David A Parker
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2012-05-27       Impact factor: 3.075

4.  Posterior condylar offset and posterior tibial slope targets to optimize knee flexion after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Yong Zhi Khow; Ming Han Lincoln Liow; Merrill Lee; Jerry Yongqiang Chen; Ngai Nung Lo; Seng Jin Yeo
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2021-01-29       Impact factor: 4.342

5.  Inaccurate rotational component position in image-free navigated unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Akihiko Toda; Kazunari Ishida; Tomoyuki Matsumoto; Hiroshi Sasaki; Koji Takayama; Ryosuke Kuroda; Masahiro Kurosaka; Nao Shibanuma
Journal:  Asia Pac J Sports Med Arthrosc Rehabil Technol       Date:  2016-01-26

6.  Intentionally Increased Flexion Angle of the Femoral Component in Mobile Bearing Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty.

Authors:  Kye-Youl Cho; Kang-Il Kim; Sang-Jun Song; Kyu-Jin Kim
Journal:  Knee Surg Relat Res       Date:  2018-03-01

7.  Flexible versus standard intramedullary rod in posterior stabilized primary total knee arthroplasty: protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  M R Bénard; R F M van Doremalen; A B Wymenga; P J C Heesterbeek
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2020-10-14       Impact factor: 2.359

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.