Literature DB >> 20706811

A second decade lifetable survival analysis of the Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.

Andrew J Price1, Ulf Svard.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The role of unicompartmental arthroplasty in managing osteoarthritis of the knee remains controversial. The Oxford medial unicompartmental arthroplasty employs a fully congruent mobile bearing intended to reduce wear and increase the lifespan of the implant. Long-term second decade results are required to establish if the design aim can be met. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We report the (1) 20-year survivorship for the Oxford mobile bearing medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty; (2) reasons for the revisions; and (3) time to revision.
METHODS: We reviewed a series of 543 patients who underwent 682 medial Oxford meniscal bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasties performed between 1983 and January 2005. The mean age at implantation was 69.7 years (range, 48-94 years). The median followup was 5.9 years (range, 0.5 to 22 years). One hundred and forty-one patients (172 knees) died. None were lost to followup. The primary outcome was 20-year survival, a key variable in assessing the longevity of arthroplasty.
RESULTS: The 16-year all cause revision cumulative survival rate was 91.0% (CI 6.4, 71 at risk) and survival was maintained to 20 years (91.0%, CI 36.2, 14 at risk). There had been 29 revision procedures: 10 for lateral arthrosis, nine for component loosening, five for infection, two bearing dislocations, and three for unexplained pain. In addition, five patients had undergone bearing exchange, four for dislocation and one for bearing fracture. The mean time to revision was 3.3 years (range, 0.3-8.9 years).
CONCLUSIONS: Mobile bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty is durable during the second decade after implantation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic study. See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 20706811      PMCID: PMC3008876          DOI: 10.1007/s11999-010-1506-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res        ISSN: 0009-921X            Impact factor:   4.176


  15 in total

Review 1.  Unicompartmental knee replacement: some unanswered questions.

Authors:  R S Laskin
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2001-11       Impact factor: 4.176

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

Authors:  A J Price; J C Waite; U Svard
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 4.176

3.  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

4.  Theory and practice of meniscal knee replacement: designing against wear.

Authors:  J J O'Connor; J W Goodfellow
Journal:  Proc Inst Mech Eng H       Date:  1996       Impact factor: 1.617

5.  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

6.  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

7.  Unicompartmental knee replacement. A minimum 15 year followup study.

Authors:  M W Squire; J J Callaghan; D D Goetz; P M Sullivan; R C Johnston
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1999-10       Impact factor: 4.176

8.  Unicompartmental arthroplasty of the knee with a minimum ten-year follow-up period.

Authors:  L Marmor
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1988-03       Impact factor: 4.176

9.  Radiological changes five years after unicompartmental knee replacement.

Authors:  A E Weale; D W Murray; J Baines; J H Newman
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2000-09

10.  The John Insall Award: unicompartmental knee replacement: a minimum twenty-one-year followup, end-result study.

Authors:  Michael R O'Rourke; Jeremy J Gardner; John J Callaghan; Steve S Liu; Devon D Goetz; David A Vittetoe; Patrick M Sullivan; Richard C Johnston
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 4.176

View more
  73 in total

1.  [Does increased tibial slope reduce the wear rate of unicompartmental knee prostheses? An in vitro investigation].

Authors:  P Weber; C Schröder; S Utzschneider; F Schmidutz; V Jansson; P E Müller
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 1.087

Review 2.  How to read a postoperative knee replacement radiograph.

Authors:  Nawfal Al-Hadithy; Madhavan C Papanna; Sana Farooq; Yegappan Kalairajah
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2011-10-16       Impact factor: 2.199

3.  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

4.  The management of mobile bearing dislocation in the Oxford lateral unicompartmental knee replacement.

Authors:  John S Weston-Simons; H Pandit; H S Gill; W F M Jackson; A J Price; C A F Dodd; D W Murray
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2011-03-03       Impact factor: 4.342

Review 5.  [Recommendations for unicondylar knee replacement in the course of time : A current inventory].

Authors:  J Beckmann; M T Hirschmann; G Matziolis; J Holz; R V Eisenhart-Rothe; C Becher
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2021-02       Impact factor: 1.087

6.  Improved accuracy in computer-assisted unicondylar knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Patrick Weber; Alexander Crispin; Florian Schmidutz; Sandra Utzschneider; Matthias F Pietschmann; Volkmar Jansson; Peter E Müller
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2013-01-23       Impact factor: 4.342

7.  [Unicompartimental joint (Oxford III) with mobile bearing : Minimally invasive implantation of a in the medial compartiment].

Authors:  W Petersen; S Metzlaff; P Forkel; A Achtnich; K Schmoranzer; P Hertel
Journal:  Oper Orthop Traumatol       Date:  2013-10       Impact factor: 1.154

8.  The cost-effectiveness of surgical treatment of medial unicompartmental knee osteoarthritis in younger patients: a computer model-based evaluation.

Authors:  Joseph F Konopka; Andreas H Gomoll; Thomas S Thornhill; Jeffrey N Katz; Elena Losina
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2015-05-20       Impact factor: 5.284

9.  Patient-specific positioning guides do not consistently achieve the planned implant position in UKA.

Authors:  Justin A M J van Leeuwen; Stephan M Röhrl
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2016-08-12       Impact factor: 4.342

10.  Results of a French multicentre retrospective experience with four hundred and eighteen failed unicondylar knee arthroplasties.

Authors:  Dominique Saragaglia; Michel Bonnin; David Dejour; Gérard Deschamps; Christophe Chol; Benoit Chabert; Ramsay Refaie
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2013-05-29       Impact factor: 3.075

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.