Literature DB >> 23926735

Revision surgery for failed unicompartmental knee replacement: technical aspects and clinical outcome.

Curtis A Robb1, Gulraj S Matharu, Khalid Baloch, Paul B Pynsent.   

Abstract

The aims of this study were to determine the complexity of surgery required to revise failed unicompartmental knee replacements and to evaluate the outcome following revision. Between 2000 and 2009, 494 cemented Oxford phase 3 medial unicompartmental knee replacements were implanted, with 24 (4.9%) requiring revision (mean age: 63.5 years; 58% male). Mean time to revision was 3.0 years. All cases were revised to a cemented total knee replacement, with primary components used in 67% and revision components in 33%. At a mean follow-up of 3.2 years the median Oxford knee score was 333% with one knee requiring re-revision (5-year survival 933%). Most failed unicompartmental knee replacements could be revised without the need for stemmed implants, augmentation, or bone allograft. When bone loss occured it was commonly on the tibial side. Good functional outcome for the revised unicompartmental knee replacement was achieved and was comparable to primary knee replacement.

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23926735

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acta Orthop Belg        ISSN: 0001-6462            Impact factor:   0.500


  6 in total

1.  Lateral tibial plateau autograft in revision surgery for failed medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Simone Cerciello; Brent Joseph Morris; Sebastien Lustig; Enrico Visonà; Giuliano Cerciello; Katia Corona; Philippe Neyret
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2015-04-24       Impact factor: 4.342

2.  Computer navigation for revision of unicompartmental knee replacements to total knee replacements: the results of a case-control study of forty six knees comparing computer navigated and conventional surgery.

Authors:  Dominique Saragaglia; Jérémy Cognault; Ramsay Refaie; Brice Rubens-Duval; Roch Mader; René Christopher Rouchy; Stephane Plaweski; Régis Pailhé
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2015-07-02       Impact factor: 3.075

Review 3.  [Revision after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty].

Authors:  G Mohr; J Martin; M Clarius
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2014-10       Impact factor: 1.087

4.  Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty Revision to TKA: Are Tibial Stems and Augments Associated With Improved Survivorship?

Authors:  Peter L Lewis; David C Davidson; Stephen E Graves; Richard N de Steiger; William Donnelly; Alana Cuthbert
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2018-04       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 5.  A meta-analysis of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty revised to total knee arthroplasty versus primary total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Xuedong Sun; Zheng Su
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2018-06-22       Impact factor: 2.359

6.  The primary stability of the femoral component in cemented single and twin peg Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty under adverse conditions.

Authors:  Johannes Adrian Eckert; Rudi G Bitsch; Robert Sonntag; Tobias Reiner; Martin Schwarze; Sebastian Jaeger
Journal:  Bone Joint Res       Date:  2022-02       Impact factor: 5.853

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.