Literature DB >> 21646024

Survivorship and patient satisfaction of a fixed bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty incorporating an all-polyethylene tibial component.

R Bhattacharya1, C E H Scott, H E Morris, F Wade, R W Nutton.   

Abstract

We report the survivorship of 91 fixed bearing unicompartmental arthroplasties with all-polyethylene tibial components (Preservation DePuy UK), which were used for medial compartment osteoarthritis in 79 patients between 2004 and 2007. The satisfaction level of patients who had not undergone revision of the implant was also recorded. For comparison, we reviewed 49 mobile bearing unicompartmental arthroplasties (Oxford UKA Biomet UK Ltd), which had been used in 44 patients between 1998 and 2007. Mean length of follow-up of patients with the fixed bearing implant was 44.7 months (range 24-74 months) and for the mobile bearing replacement, the mean follow-up was 67.6 months (24-119). In the fixed bearing design, at maximum follow-up period of 74 months, eight implants (8.8%) had been revised (or were listed for revision) to Total Knee Replacement and in the mobile bearing design over the maximum follow-up period of 119 months there had been only one revision (2.0%). Patients who had not undergone revision were asked if they were satisfied with their knee following the unicompartmental arthroplasty. In the fixed bearing design, 83.5% said that they were satisfied with the outcome of the operation compared to 93.9% of the patients receiving the mobile bearing design. We conclude that there is a higher incidence of revision of this fixed bearing design using an all-polyethylene tibial component compared to the mobile bearing design. We found that those patients who had not required revision had a lower rate of satisfaction with the fixed bearing compared to the mobile bearing design.
Copyright © 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21646024     DOI: 10.1016/j.knee.2011.04.009

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


  17 in total

1.  Roentgen stereophotogrammetric analysis: an effective tool to predict implant survival after an all-poly unicompartmental knee arthroplasty-a 10 year follow-up study.

Authors:  Danilo Bruni; Laura Bragonzoni; Michele Gagliardi; Marco Bontempi; Ibrahim Akkawi; Giovanni Francesco Raspugli; Francesco Iacono; Silvio Patella; Maurilio Marcacci
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2014-06-11       Impact factor: 4.342

2.  Survivorship and patient satisfaction of robotic-assisted medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty at a minimum two-year follow-up.

Authors:  Andrew D Pearle; Jelle P van der List; Lily Lee; Thomas M Coon; Todd A Borus; Martin W Roche
Journal:  Knee       Date:  2017-02-06       Impact factor: 2.199

Review 3.  Fixed- versus mobile-bearing UKA: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Geert Peersman; Bart Stuyts; Tom Vandenlangenbergh; Philippe Cartier; Peter Fennema
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2014-06-24       Impact factor: 4.342

Review 4.  Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in patients under the age of 60 years provides excellent clinical outcomes and 10-year implant survival: a systematic review : A study performed by the Early Osteoarthritis group of ESSKA-European Knee Associates section.

Authors:  Theofylaktos Kyriakidis; Vipin Asopa; Mike Baums; René Verdonk; Trifon Totlis
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2022-06-28       Impact factor: 4.342

Review 5.  Fixed- versus mobile-bearing unicondylar knee arthroplasty: are failure modes different?

Authors:  Tao Cheng; Daoyun Chen; Chen Zhu; Xiaoyun Pan; Xin Mao; Yongyuan Guo; Xianlong Zhang
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2012-09-25       Impact factor: 4.342

6.  Minimum thickness of all-poly tibial component unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in patients younger than 60 years does not increase revision rate for aseptic loosening.

Authors:  Danilo Bruni; Ibrahim Akkawi; Francesco Iacono; Giovanni Francesco Raspugli; Michele Gagliardi; Marco Nitri; Alberto Grassi; Stefano Zaffagnini; Simone Bignozzi; Maurilio Marcacci
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2013-06-28       Impact factor: 4.342

7.  Metal-backed versus all-polyethylene unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: Proximal tibial strain in an experimentally validated finite element model.

Authors:  C E H Scott; M J Eaton; R W Nutton; F A Wade; S L Evans; P Pankaj
Journal:  Bone Joint Res       Date:  2017-01       Impact factor: 5.853

Review 8.  Outcome of Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review of Comparative Studies between Fixed and Mobile Bearings Focusing on Complications.

Authors:  Young-Bong Ko; Manan Ramesh Gujarathi; Kwang-Jun Oh
Journal:  Knee Surg Relat Res       Date:  2015-09-01

Review 9.  Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: Modes of Failure and Conversion to Total Knee Arthroplasty.

Authors:  Michele Vasso; Katia Corona; Rocco D'Apolito; Giuseppe Mazzitelli; Alfredo Schiavone Panni
Journal:  Joints       Date:  2017-06-05

10.  Mid-Term Outcomes of Metal-Backed Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty Show Superiority to All-Polyethylene Unicompartmental and Total Knee Arthroplasty.

Authors:  Jelle P van der List; Laura J Kleeblad; Hendrik A Zuiderbaan; Andrew D Pearle
Journal:  HSS J       Date:  2017-05-12
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.