Literature DB >> 23622861

Medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: does tibial component position influence clinical outcomes and arthroplasty survival?

R Chatellard1, V Sauleau, M Colmar, H Robert, G Raynaud, J Brilhault.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: In several recent studies, unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) produced better functional outcomes than did total knee arthroplasty with 10-year prosthesis survival rates greater than 95%. Nevertheless, UKA is still widely viewed as producing inconsistent results. Tibial component loosening is the leading cause of failure. We consequently sought to identify tibial component position criteria associated with outcomes of medial UKA.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective multicentre study of 559 medial UKAs performed between 1988 and 2010 in 421 patients (262 females and 159 males) with a mean age of 69.51±8.72 years at surgery. We recorded the following radiographic parameters: joint space height, obliquity and slope of the tibial implant, whether the tibial component was perpendicular to the femoral component, and lower limb malalignment. The International Knee Society (IKS) score was used to assess clinical outcomes. Mean follow-up at re-evaluation was 5.17±4.33 years.
RESULTS: The mean 10-year prosthesis survival rate was 83.7±3.5%. Factors associated with decreased prosthesis survival were a greater than 2-mm change in joint space height, a greater than 3° change in tibial component obliquity, a slope value greater than 5° or a change in slope greater than 2°, and more than 6° of divergence between the tibial and femoral components. Residual mechanical varus of 5° or more was also associated with mechanical failure. The only factor associated with worse functional score values was joint space elevation by more than 2mm. DISCUSSION: The high level of accuracy required for optimal positioning of the tibial component during medial UKA indicates a need for considerable technical expertise and emphasises the conservative nature of the procedure. Optimal positioning is crucial to restore normal knee kinematics and to prevent implant wear and lesions to adjacent compartments. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV, retrospective study.
Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23622861     DOI: 10.1016/j.otsr.2013.03.004

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


  42 in total

1.  Tibial baseplate positioning in robotic-assisted and conventional unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Katherine P MacCallum; Jonathan R Danoff; Jeffrey A Geller
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2015-10-06

2.  CORR Insights ®: The Oxford unicompartmental knee fails at a high rate in a high-volume knee practice.

Authors:  John M Clark
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2013-08-24       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 3.  Larger range of motion and increased return to activity, but higher revision rates following unicompartmental versus total knee arthroplasty in patients under 65: a systematic review.

Authors:  Laura J Kleeblad; Jelle P van der List; Hendrik A Zuiderbaan; Andrew D Pearle
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2017-11-28       Impact factor: 4.342

4.  [Medial knee osteoarthritis with juxta-articular tibial varus deformity: combined single condylar knee arthroplasty with open high tibial osteotomy].

Authors:  L Drobny; S Preiss; L Harder; F von Knoch
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2015-08       Impact factor: 1.087

Review 5.  [Guidelines for the treatment of unicompartmental cartilage defects of the knee-Cartilage repair, osteotomy, mini-implant or arthroplasty?]

Authors:  Christoph Becher; Andreas Imhoff
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2020-12-18       Impact factor: 1.087

Review 6.  [New technologies (robotics, custom-made) in unicondylar knee arthroplasty-pro].

Authors:  Malin Meier; Tilman Calliess; Carsten Tibesku; Johannes Beckmann
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2021-02       Impact factor: 1.087

Review 7.  [Robotics-mechanical bridge between imaging and patient].

Authors:  M Ettinger; P Savov; T Calliess; H Windhagen
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2018-10       Impact factor: 1.087

8.  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

Review 9.  [Modern unicondylar knee arthroplasty. Tips and tricks].

Authors:  F von Knoch; U Munzinger
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2014-05       Impact factor: 1.087

10.  Early functional outcome after lateral UKA is sensitive to postoperative lower limb alignment.

Authors:  J P van der List; H Chawla; J C Villa; H A Zuiderbaan; A D Pearle
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2015-11-26       Impact factor: 4.342

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.