Literature DB >> 23925740

Improved fixation in cementless unicompartmental knee replacement: five-year results of a randomized controlled trial.

H Pandit1, A D Liddle, B J L Kendrick, C Jenkins, A J Price, H S Gill, C A F Dodd, D W Murray.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: When used for appropriate indications, unicompartmental knee replacement is associated with fewer complications, faster recovery, and better function than total knee replacement. However, joint registries demonstrate a higher revision rate for unicompartmental knee replacement. Currently, most unicompartmental knee replacements are cemented; common reasons for revision include aseptic loosening and pain. These problems could potentially be addressed by using cementless implants, with coatings designed to improve fixation. The objectives of this study were to compare the quality of fixation as well as clinical outcomes of cemented and cementless unicompartmental knee replacements at five years of follow-up.
METHODS: A randomized controlled trial was established with sixty-three knees (sixty-two patients) receiving either cemented (thirty-two patients) or cementless Oxford unicompartmental knee replacements (thirty patients). Fixation was assessed with fluoroscopic radiographs aligned to the bone-implant interface at one and five years. Outcome scores, including the Oxford Knee Score, Knee Society objective and functional scores, and Tegner Activity Score, were collected preoperatively and at six months and one, two, and five years postoperatively. At each postoperative time point, these were recorded as absolute scores and change from the preoperative score.
RESULTS: Four patients died during the study period. There were no revisions. Mean operative time was nine minutes shorter in the cementless group (p = 0.049). At five years, there was no significant difference in any outcome measure except the Knee Society functional score and the change in the Knee Society functional score, which were significantly better in the cementless group (p = 0.003 for both). There were significantly more tibial radiolucencies in the cemented group (twenty of thirty knees versus two of twenty-seven knees; p < 0.001). There were nine complete radiolucencies in the cemented group and none in the cementless group (p = 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: Cementless fixation provides improved fixation at five years compared with cemented fixation in mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee replacements, maintaining equivalent or superior clinical outcomes with a shorter operative time and no increase in complications. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic level I. See Instructions for authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23925740     DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.L.01005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am        ISSN: 0021-9355            Impact factor:   5.284


  22 in total

Review 1.  Outcomes of cementless fixation in medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: review of recent literature.

Authors:  M Basso; E Arnaldi; A A M Bruno; M Formica
Journal:  Musculoskelet Surg       Date:  2020-06-26

Review 2.  [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

Review 3.  Unicondylar knee arthroplasty: Key concepts.

Authors:  Mohamad J Halawi; Wael K Barsoum
Journal:  J Clin Orthop Trauma       Date:  2016-11-14

Review 4.  Cementless fixation in medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a systematic review.

Authors:  S Campi; H G Pandit; C A F Dodd; D W Murray
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2016-07-19       Impact factor: 4.342

5.  Cementless versus cemented Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: early results of a non-designer user group.

Authors:  B Kerens; M G M Schotanus; B Boonen; P Boog; P J Emans; H Lacroix; N P Kort
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2016-05-09       Impact factor: 4.342

6.  An Analysis of Risk Factors for Short-Term Complication Rates and Increased Length of Stay Following Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty.

Authors:  Bryan D Haughom; William W Schairer; Michael D Hellman; Benedict U Nwachukwu; Brett R Levine
Journal:  HSS J       Date:  2015-01-27

7.  Assessment of radiolucent lines in patients with lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty and the relationship between these lines and the outcome.

Authors:  Long Xue; Huaming Xue; Tao Wen; Mengying Guan; Tao Yang; Tong Ma; Yihui Tu
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2021-06-26       Impact factor: 3.075

8.  Five-year experience of cementless Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement.

Authors:  H G Pandit; S Campi; T W Hamilton; O D Dada; S Pollalis; C Jenkins; C A F Dodd; D W Murray
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2015-11-26       Impact factor: 4.342

9.  Promising short-term clinical results of the cementless Oxford phase III medial unicondylar knee prosthesis.

Authors:  Karin B van Dorp; Stefan Jm Breugem; Daniël J Bruijn; Marcel Jm Driessen
Journal:  World J Orthop       Date:  2016-04-18

10.  Medium-term outcome of cementless, mobile-bearing, unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Radosław Stempin; Kacper Stempin; Wiesław Kaczmarek
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2019-02
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.