Literature DB >> 22810012

Revision of minimal resection resurfacing unicondylar knee arthroplasty to total knee arthroplasty: results compared with primary total knee arthroplasty.

Turlough M P O'Donnell1, Omar Abouazza, Michael J Neil.   

Abstract

We compared a cohort of patients undergoing revision of a minimal resection resurfacing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) to total knee arthroplasty (TKA) with a cohort of patients undergoing primary TKA. Both cohorts were matched in terms of age, sex, and body mass index. We collected data on preoperative and postoperative range of motion, International Knee Society scores, and radiologic data. We also collected data on the modes of failure of the primary UKA. There were 55 patients in each cohort. The average time the UKA was in place was 48.3 months. The average follow-up period from the time of revision was 39.2 months. The most common reason for revision was subsidence of the tibial base plate (58%). Forty percent of patients required particulate bone grafting for contained defects. Two patients required metal augments, and 1 required stems. There was no significant difference between the 2 groups in terms of range of motion, functional outcome, or radiologic outcomes. Revision of these types of implants to TKA is associated with similar results to primary TKA and is superior to revision of other forms of UKA.
Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22810012     DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2012.02.031

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Arthroplasty        ISSN: 0883-5403            Impact factor:   4.757


  8 in total

Review 1.  [Recommendations for unicondylar knee replacement in the course of time : A current inventory].

Authors:  J Beckmann; M T Hirschmann; G Matziolis; J Holz; R V Eisenhart-Rothe; C Becher
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2021-02       Impact factor: 1.087

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

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

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

Review 4.  Medial Unicompartmental Osteoarthritis (MUO) of the Knee: Unicompartmental Knee Replacement (UKR) or Total Knee Replacement (TKR).

Authors:  E Carlos Rodriguez-Merchan
Journal:  Arch Bone Jt Surg       Date:  2014-09-15

5.  Inferior outcome of revision of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty to total knee arthroplasty compared with primary total knee arthroplasty: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Jin Kyu Lee; Hyun Jung Kim; Jae Ok Park; Jae-Hyuk Yang
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2018-03-27       Impact factor: 4.342

6.  Minimally invasive unicompartmental knee replacement: Midterm clinical outcome.

Authors:  Shaoqi Tian; Jiangjun Liu; Wanqing Yuan; Yuanhe Wang; Chengzhi Ha; Lun Liu; Qicai Li; Xu Yang; Kang Sun
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-05-04       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Imageless robotic-assisted revision arthroplasty from UKA to TKA : Surgical technique and case-control study compared with primary robotic TKA.

Authors:  Lars-Rene Tuecking; Peter Savov; Henning Windhagen; Simon Jennings; Dinesh Nathwani; Max Ettinger
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2021-10-29       Impact factor: 1.087

8.  Robotics improves alignment accuracy and reduces early revision rates for UKA in the hands of low-volume UKA surgeons.

Authors:  Peter Savov; Lars-Rene Tuecking; Henning Windhagen; Tilman Calliess; Max Ettinger
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2021-08-18       Impact factor: 3.067

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.