Literature DB >> 23907606

The Oxford unicompartmental knee fails at a high rate in a high-volume knee practice.

William C Schroer1, C Lowry Barnes, Paul Diesfeld, Angela LeMarr, Rachel Ingrassia, Diane J Morton, Mary Reedy.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The Oxford knee is a unicompartmental implant featuring a mobile-bearing polyethylene component with excellent long-term survivorship results reported by the implant developers and early adopters. By contrast, other studies have reported higher revision rates in large academic practices and in national registries. Registry data have shown increased failure with this implant especially by lower-volume surgeons and institutions. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: In the setting of a high-volume knee arthroplasty practice, we sought to determine (1) the failure rate of the Oxford unicompartmental knee implant using a failure definition for aseptic loosening that combined clinical features, plain radiographs, and scintigraphy, and (2) whether increased experience with this implant would decrease failure rate, if there is a learning curve effect.
METHODS: Eighty-three Oxford knee prostheses were implanted between September 2005 and July 2008 by the principal investigator. Radiographic and clinical data were available for review for all cases. A failed knee was defined as having recurrent pain after an earlier period of recovery from surgery, progressive radiolucent lines compared with initial postoperative radiographs, and a bone scan showing an isolated area of uptake limited to the area of the replaced compartment.
RESULTS: Eleven knees in this series failed (13%); Kaplan-Meier survivorship was 86.5% (95% CI, 78.0%-95.0%) at 5 years. Failure occurrences were distributed evenly over the course of the study period. No learning curve effect was identified.
CONCLUSIONS: Based on these findings, including a high failure rate of the Oxford knee implant and the absence of any discernible learning curve effect, the principal investigator no longer uses this implant.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23907606      PMCID: PMC3792243          DOI: 10.1007/s11999-013-3174-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res        ISSN: 0009-921X            Impact factor:   4.176


  25 in total

1.  The routine of surgical management reduces failure after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  O Robertsson; K Knutson; S Lewold; L Lidgren
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2001-01

2.  The Oxford unicompartmental knee prosthesis: an independent 10-year survival analysis.

Authors:  Peter Vorlat; Guy Putzeys; Dominique Cottenie; Tom Van Isacker; Nicole Pouliart; Frank Handelberg; Pierre-Paul Casteleyn; Filip Gheysen; René Verdonk
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2005-05-14       Impact factor: 4.342

3.  The Oxford medial unicompartmental knee replacement using a minimally-invasive approach.

Authors:  H Pandit; C Jenkins; K Barker; C A F Dodd; D W Murray
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2006-01

4.  Radiolucency and migration after Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Paul Rea; Andrew Short; Hemant Pandit; Andrew J Price; Peter Kyberd; David J Beard; Harinderjit S Gill; David W Murray
Journal:  Orthopedics       Date:  2007-05       Impact factor: 1.390

5.  Effects of increased surgical volume on total knee arthroplasty complications.

Authors:  William C Schroer; George T Calvert; Paul J Diesfeld; Mary E Reedy; Angela R LeMarr
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 4.757

6.  The incidence of physiological radiolucency following Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement and its relationship to outcome.

Authors:  A Gulati; R Chau; H G Pandit; H Gray; A J Price; C A F Dodd; D W Murray
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2009-07

7.  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

8.  Oxford meniscal bearing knee versus the Marmor knee in unicompartmental arthroplasty for arthrosis. A Swedish multicenter survival study.

Authors:  S Lewold; S Goodman; K Knutson; O Robertsson; L Lidgren
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  1995-12       Impact factor: 4.757

9.  The Oxford unicompartmental knee prosthesis for the treatment of medial compartment knee disease: 2 to 5 year follow-up.

Authors:  Snir Heller; Itay Fenichel; Moshe Salai; Tal Luria; Steven Velkes
Journal:  Isr Med Assoc J       Date:  2009-05       Impact factor: 0.892

10.  Liberal indications for minimally invasive oxford unicondylar arthroplasty provide rapid functional recovery and pain relief.

Authors:  Keith R Berend; Adolph V Lombardi
Journal:  Surg Technol Int       Date:  2007
View more
  11 in total

1.  Minimally invasive Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty ensures excellent functional outcome and high survivorship in the long term.

Authors:  Tilman Walker; Pit Hetto; Thomas Bruckner; Tobias Gotterbarm; Christian Merle; Benjamin Panzram; Moritz M Innmann; Babak Moradi
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2018-11-21       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

3.  Short-term outcome of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in the octogenarian population.

Authors:  Baha John Tadros; John Dabis; Roy Twyman
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2017-07-25       Impact factor: 4.342

4.  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

5.  Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty survivorship is lower than TKA survivorship: a 27-year Finnish registry study.

Authors:  Tuukka Niinimäki; Antti Eskelinen; Keijo Mäkelä; Pasi Ohtonen; Ari-Pekka Puhto; Ville Remes
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2013-11-19       Impact factor: 4.176

6.  The learning curve of patient-specific unikondylar arthroplasty may be advantageous to off-the-shelf implants: A preliminary study.

Authors:  C Mayer; B Bittersohl; M Haversath; A Franz; R Krauspe; M Jäger; C Zilkens
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2020-05-06

7.  Outcomes and early revision rate after medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: prospective results from a non-designer single surgeon.

Authors:  Jonathan R B Hutt; Avtar Sur; Hartej Sur; Aine Ringrose; Mark S Rickman
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2018-05-29       Impact factor: 2.362

8.  Radiological outcomes following manual and robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Gregory S Kazarian; Robert L Barrack; Toby N Barrack; Charles M Lawrie; Ryan M Nunley
Journal:  Bone Jt Open       Date:  2021-03

9.  Therapeutic Effects Comparison and Revision Case Analysis of Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty and Open Wedge High Tibial Osteotomy in Treating Medial Knee Osteoarthritis in Patients Under 60 years: A 2-6-year Follow-up Study.

Authors:  Zhang Ziqi; Mei Yufeng; Zhang Lei; Wang Chunsheng; Yang Pei; Wang Kunzheng
Journal:  Orthop Surg       Date:  2020-09-06       Impact factor: 2.071

10.  Higher risk of revision for partial knee replacements in low absolute volume hospitals: data from 18,134 partial knee replacements in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register.

Authors:  Iris van Oost; Koen L M Koenraadt; Liza N van Steenbergen; Stefan B T Bolder; Rutger C I van Geenen
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2020-04-14       Impact factor: 3.717

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.