Literature DB >> 21531140

Revision of medial Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement to a total knee replacement: similar to a primary?

Henry Wynn Jones1, Warwick Chan, Timothy Harrison, Toby O Smith, Patrick Masonda, Neil P Walton.   

Abstract

Unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) is an option for the treatment of isolated medial compartment osteoarthritis. A commonly perceived potential advantage is that revision of a UKR is straightforward. The purpose of this study was to determine the early outcomes and the level of complexity of revisions of Oxford UKRs performed at our hospital. A retrospective review of a prospective database of all phase III Oxford UKRs was undertaken. This identified 89 Oxford UKRs which were revised at our institution between 2002 and 2008. The median time from the primary procedure to revision was 19 months (interquartile range 2-73 months). Nine were revised to another UKR. Eighty were revised to a total knee replacement (TKR). Fifty-three were revised with primary TKR components. Twenty-seven were revised using stems and/or augments. The median overall tibial component thickness (including augments) was 15 mm. Forty-five knees had an overall tibial component thickness greater than 15 mm. A primary Oxford UKR bearing thickness of greater than 6mm was associated with an increased likelihood of requiring revision components. On the basis of this review, tibial bone defects were commonly encountered when revising UKRs. Reconstruction with either an augment and a stem, or thick polyethylene component was often required. We recommend that the potential complexity of revision for UKR failure should be borne in mind when considering a primary Oxford UKR.
Copyright © 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21531140     DOI: 10.1016/j.knee.2011.03.006

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


  18 in total

1.  Computer navigation for revision of unicompartmental knee replacements to total knee replacements: the results of a case-control study of forty six knees comparing computer navigated and conventional surgery.

Authors:  Dominique Saragaglia; Jérémy Cognault; Ramsay Refaie; Brice Rubens-Duval; Roch Mader; René Christopher Rouchy; Stephane Plaweski; Régis Pailhé
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2015-07-02       Impact factor: 3.075

2.  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

Review 3.  [Revision after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty].

Authors:  G Mohr; J Martin; M Clarius
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2014-10       Impact factor: 1.087

4.  Rehabilitation outcomes following revision for failed unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Wei Sheng Foong; Ngai Nung Lo
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2014-07-26

5.  The forgotten joint score in total and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a prospective cohort study.

Authors:  Geert Peersman; Jeroen Verhaegen; Barbara Favier
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2019-05-21       Impact factor: 3.075

6.  Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty Revision to TKA: Are Tibial Stems and Augments Associated With Improved Survivorship?

Authors:  Peter L Lewis; David C Davidson; Stephen E Graves; Richard N de Steiger; William Donnelly; Alana Cuthbert
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2018-04       Impact factor: 4.176

7.  Revision of partial knee to total knee arthroplasty with use of patient-specific instruments results in acceptable femoral rotation.

Authors:  Martijn G M Schotanus; Elke Thijs; B Boonen; B Kerens; B Jong; Nanne P Kort
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2017-08-07       Impact factor: 4.342

8.  The risk of revision after TKA is affected by previous HTO or UKA.

Authors:  Otto Robertsson; Annette W-Dahl
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 4.176

9.  Hip and Knee Section, Treatment, Surgical Technique: Proceedings of International Consensus on Orthopedic Infections.

Authors:  Moneer M Abouljoud; David Backstein; Andrew Battenberg; Matthew Dietz; Alejo Erice; Andrew A Freiberg; Jeffrey Granger; Adam Katchky; Anton Khlopas; Tae-Kyun Kim; Per Kjaersgaard-Andersen; Kyung-Hoi Koo; Yona Kosashvili; Percia Lazarovski; Jennifer Leighton; Adolph Lombardi; Konstantinos Malizos; Jorge Manrique; Michael A Mont; Marianthe Papanagiotoy; Rafael J Sierra; Nipun Sodhi; John Stammers; Maik Stiehler; Timothy L Tan; Katsufumi Uchiyama; Derek Ward; Anna Ziogkou
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2018-10-19       Impact factor: 4.757

10.  Medium-term outcome of cementless, mobile-bearing, unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Radosław Stempin; Kacper Stempin; Wiesław Kaczmarek
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2019-02
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.