Literature DB >> 21945385

Fixed-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Patients' selection and operative technique.

G Deschamps1, C Chol.   

Abstract

Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is designed for patients presenting arthritic wear limited to a single medial or lateral tibiofemoral compartment. The indication is based on strict criteria. Wear must stem from degenerative osteoarthritis or be secondary to aseptic necrosis of the medial condyle. Inflammatory rheumatism is a contraindication. Age and activity level should be compatible with an indication for arthroplasty. The body mass index should be less than 30 kg/m(2). The ligament system must be intact, particularly both cruciate ligaments. Any pre-existing axis deformity should be moderate and the residual axis deformity, after correction of wear with a unicompartmental tibial augmentation spacer, should not exceed 7-10° varus or valgus. These highly restrictive conditions result in the ideal indications for UKA suitable for no more than 15-20% of knee arthroplasty candidates for most surgeons experienced in this procedure. Although the results of certain early series worried potential users, today it can be asserted that recent series whose indications and technique correspond to modern use criteria, have shown results that are as reliable as those of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) at a 10 years' follow-up. Beyond this time frame, the risk of polyethylene wear related to the technical restrictions of the UKA is another consideration. Indeed, to prevent the risk of rapid extension of osteoarthritis to the opposite compartment, the procedure should be limited to restoring the patient's constitutional axis before wear phenomena had set in. This makes UKA a surgical procedure at risk of failure due to wear phenomena. Much of this paper will describe the precise rules for UKA positioning, which are critical to observe to warrant these implants outcome and longevity.
Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21945385     DOI: 10.1016/j.otsr.2011.08.003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Orthop Traumatol Surg Res        ISSN: 1877-0568            Impact factor:   2.256


  19 in total

1.  Joint line reconstruction in medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: development and validation of a measurement method.

Authors:  Patrick Weber; Christian Schröder; Rüdiger Paul Laubender; Andrea Baur-Melnyk; Christoph von Schulze Pellengahr; Volkmar Jansson; Peter E Müller
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2013-07-24       Impact factor: 4.342

2.  Kinematics of the knee after unicompartmental arthroplasty is not the same as normal and is similar to the kinematics of the knee with osteoarthritis.

Authors:  Tomoharu Mochizuki; Takashi Sato; John David Blaha; Osamu Tanifuji; Koichi Kobayashi; Hiroshi Yamagiwa; Satoshi Watanabe; Munenori Matsueda; Yoshio Koga; Go Omori; Naoto Endo
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2013-11-12       Impact factor: 4.342

Review 3.  Bicompartmental knee arthroplasty of the patellofemoral and medial compartments.

Authors:  Emmanuel Thienpont; Andrew Price
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2012-11-25       Impact factor: 4.342

4.  The coronal alignment after medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty can be predicted: usefulness of full-length valgus stress radiography for evaluating correctability.

Authors:  Yasutaka Tashiro; Shuichi Matsuda; Ken Okazaki; Hideki Mizu-Uchi; Umito Kuwashima; Yukihide Iwamoto
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2014-08-26       Impact factor: 4.342

5.  Preoperative pain location is a poor predictor of outcome after Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty at 1 and 5 years.

Authors:  A D Liddle; H Pandit; C Jenkins; A J Price; C A F Dodd; H S Gill; D W Murray
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2012-09-22       Impact factor: 4.342

Review 6.  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

7.  A systematic approach to predicting the risk of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty revision.

Authors:  G Zhang; B P Smith; J F Plate; R Casanova; F-C Hsu; J Li; L Xia; K C Li; G G Poehling; X Zhou
Journal:  Osteoarthritis Cartilage       Date:  2016-01-14       Impact factor: 6.576

8.  The value of valgus stress radiographs in the workup for medial unicompartmental arthritis.

Authors:  Wenzel Waldstein; Jad Bou Monsef; Johannes Buckup; Friedrich Boettner
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2013-08-06       Impact factor: 4.176

9.  Tibial component alignment and risk of loosening in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a radiographic and radiostereometric study.

Authors:  P Barbadoro; A Ensini; A Leardini; M d'Amato; A Feliciangeli; A Timoncini; F Amadei; C Belvedere; S Giannini
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2014-06-28       Impact factor: 4.342

10.  Does intraarticular inflammation predict biomechanical cartilage properties?

Authors:  Wenzel Waldstein; Giorgio Perino; Shari T Jawetz; Susannah L Gilbert; Friedrich Boettner
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2014-03-25       Impact factor: 4.176

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.