Literature DB >> 21282759

Minimally invasive Oxford phase 3 unicompartmental knee replacement: results of 1000 cases.

H Pandit1, C Jenkins, H S Gill, K Barker, C A F Dodd, D W Murray.   

Abstract

This prospective study describes the outcome of the first 1000 phase 3 Oxford medial unicompartmental knee replacements (UKRs) implanted using a minimally invasive surgical approach for the recommended indications by two surgeons and followed up independently. The mean follow-up was 5.6 years (1 to 11) with 547 knees having a minimum follow-up of five years. At five years their mean Oxford knee score was 41.3 (sd 7.2), the mean American Knee Society Objective Score 86.4 (sd 13.4), mean American Knee Society Functional Score 86.1 (sd 16.6), mean Tegner activity score 2.8 (sd 1.1). For the entire cohort, the mean maximum flexion was 130° at the time of final review. The incidence of implant-related re-operations was 2.9%; of these 29 re-operations two were revisions requiring revision knee replacement components with stems and wedges, 17 were conversions to a primary total knee replacement, six were open reductions for dislocation of the bearing, three were secondary lateral UKRs and one was revision of a tibial component. The most common reason for further surgical intervention was progression of arthritis in the lateral compartment (0.9%), followed by dislocation of the bearing (0.6%) and revision for unexplained pain (0.6%). If all implant-related re-operations are considered failures, the ten-year survival rate was 96% (95% confidence interval, 92.5 to 99.5). If only revisions requiring revision components are considered failures the ten-year survival rate is 99.8% (confidence interval 99 to 100). This is the largest published series of UKRs implanted through a minimally invasive surgical approach and with ten-year survival data. The survival rates are similar to those obtained with a standard open approach whereas the function is better. This demonstrates the effectiveness and safety of a minimally invasive surgical approach for implanting the Oxford UKR.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21282759     DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.93B2.25767

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br        ISSN: 0301-620X


  92 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

2.  Survival analysis and functional outcome of the Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement up to 11 years follow up at a District General Hospital.

Authors:  M Edmondson; A Atrey; D East; N Ellens; K Miles; R Goddard; H Apthorp; A Butler-Manuel
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2015-05-18

3.  Bi-unicompartmental and combined uni plus patellofemoral replacement: indications and surgical technique.

Authors:  Sergio Romagnoli; Matteo Marullo; Michele Massaro; Enis Rustemi; Federico D'Amario; Michele Corbella
Journal:  Joints       Date:  2015-06-08

Review 4.  [Patella position and patellofemoral osteoarthritis after unicompartmental arthroplasty].

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

5.  [Individualized unicondylar knee replacement : Use of patient-specific implants and instruments].

Authors:  J Arnholdt; B M Holzapfel; L Sefrin; M Rudert; J Beckmann; A F Steinert
Journal:  Oper Orthop Traumatol       Date:  2017-01-31       Impact factor: 1.154

6.  Effect of arthritis in other compartment after unicompartmental arthroplasty.

Authors:  Ali Mofidi; Bo Lu; Johannes F Plate; Jason E Lang; Gary G Poehling; Riyaz H Jinnah
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2013-06-16

Review 7.  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

8.  Up to twelve year follow-up of the Oxford phase three unicompartmental knee replacement in China: seven hundred and eight knees from an independent centre.

Authors:  Huaming Xue; Yihui Tu; Tong Ma; Tao Wen; Tao Yang; Minwei Cai
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2017-05-10       Impact factor: 3.075

9.  Minimally invasive Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty ensures excellent functional outcome and high survivorship in the long term.

Authors:  Tilman Walker; Pit Hetto; Thomas Bruckner; Tobias Gotterbarm; Christian Merle; Benjamin Panzram; Moritz M Innmann; Babak Moradi
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2018-11-21       Impact factor: 4.342

10.  Five-year experience of cementless Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement.

Authors:  H G Pandit; S Campi; T W Hamilton; O D Dada; S Pollalis; C Jenkins; C A F Dodd; D W Murray
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2015-11-26       Impact factor: 4.342

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.