Literature DB >> 21981987

Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: medial pain and functional outcome in the medium term.

Mark C Edmondson1, David Isaac, Malin Wijeratna, Sean Brink, Paul Gibb, Paul Skinner.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In our experience results of the Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement have not been as good as had been expected. A common post operative complaint is of persistent medial knee discomfort, it is not clear why this phenomenon occurs and we have attempted to address this in our study.
METHODS: 48 patients were retrospectively identified at a mean of 4.5 years (range = 3 to 6 years) following consecutive Oxford medial Unicompartmental Knee arthroplasties for varus anteromedial osteoarthritis. The mean age at implantation was 67 years (range 57-86). Of these 48 patients, 4 had died, 4 had undergone revision of their unicompartmental knee replacements and 2 had been lost to follow up leaving 38 patients with 40 replaced knees available for analysis using the 'new Oxford Knee Score' questionnaire. During assessment patients were asked specifically whether or not they still experienced medial knee discomfort or pain.
RESULTS: The mean 'Oxford score' was only 32.7 (range = 16 to 48) and 22 of the 40 knees were uncomfortable or painful medially.The accuracy of component positioning was recorded, using standard post operative xrays, by summing the angulation or displacement of each component in two planes from the ideal position (according to the 'Oxford knee system radiographic criteria'). No correlation was demonstrated between the radiographic scores and the 'Oxford scores', or with the presence or absence of medial knee discomfort or pain.
CONCLUSION: In our hands the functional outcome following Oxford Unicompartmental knee replacement was variable, with a high incidence of medial knee discomfort which did not correlate with the postoperative radiographic scores, pre-op arthritis and positioning of the prosthesis.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21981987      PMCID: PMC3198686          DOI: 10.1186/1749-799X-6-52

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res        ISSN: 1749-799X            Impact factor:   2.359


  17 in total

1.  Fixed or mobile bearing unicompartmental knee replacement? A comparative cohort study.

Authors:  R E Gleeson; R Evans; C E Ackroyd; J Webb; J H Newman
Journal:  Knee       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 2.199

Review 2.  Mobile bearing unicompartmental knee replacement.

Authors:  David W Murray
Journal:  Orthopedics       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 1.390

3.  Unicompartmental or total knee replacement: the 15-year results of a prospective randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  J Newman; R V Pydisetty; C Ackroyd
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2009-01

4.  Influence of component alignment on outcome for unicompartmental knee replacement.

Authors:  A Gulati; R Chau; D J Simpson; C A F Dodd; H S Gill; D W Murray
Journal:  Knee       Date:  2008-11-29       Impact factor: 2.199

5.  Five- to 8-year results of the uncemented Duracon total knee arthroplasty system.

Authors:  Rishi Chana; Yatish Shenava; Alison P Nicholl; Felicity J Lusted; Paul W Skinner; Paul A Gibb
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2008-01-22       Impact factor: 4.757

6.  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

7.  Clinical outcome of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty and influence of alignment on prosthesis survival rate.

Authors:  V B Kasodekar; S J Yeo; S Othman
Journal:  Singapore Med J       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 1.858

8.  Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. 2- to 12-year results in a community hospital.

Authors:  C Rajasekhar; S Das; A Smith
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2004-09

9.  The Knee Arthroplasty Trial (KAT) design features, baseline characteristics, and two-year functional outcomes after alternative approaches to knee replacement.

Authors:  Linda Johnston; Graeme MacLennan; Kirsty McCormack; Craig Ramsay; Allan Walker
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 5.284

10.  The Oxford unicompartmental knee prosthesis: a 2-14 year follow-up.

Authors:  R Verdonk; D Cottenie; K F Almqvist; P Vorlat
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2004-05-28       Impact factor: 4.342

View more
  4 in total

1.  A novel radiographic technique to assess 180° rotational spin of the Oxford unicompartmental knee mobile bearing.

Authors:  Salman Jamshed; Rohi Shah; Arrish Arooj; Adrian Turner; Christos Plakogiannis
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2020-08-26

2.  Medial abrasion syndrome: a neglected cause of persistent pain after knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Shaw-Ruey Lyu; Chia-Chen Hsu; Jung-Pin Hung
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2021-01-19       Impact factor: 2.359

3.  Implant Overhang after Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: Oxford Prosthesis versus Miller-Galante II Prosthesis.

Authors:  Geon-Hyeong Kim; Bum-Yong Park; Tae-Yong Bae; Kwang-Yun Song; Yong In
Journal:  Knee Surg Relat Res       Date:  2014-05-30

4.  The learning curve for minimally invasive Oxford phase 3 unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: cumulative summation test for learning curve (LC-CUSUM).

Authors:  Qidong Zhang; Qian Zhang; Wanshou Guo; Zhaohui Liu; Liming Cheng; Debo Yue; Nianfei Zhang
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2014-09-06       Impact factor: 2.359

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.