Literature DB >> 24464421

No radiographic difference between patient-specific guiding and conventional Oxford UKA surgery.

Bart Kerens1, Martijn G M Schotanus, Bert Boonen, Nanne P Kort.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Implant position is an important factor in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) surgery. Results on conventional UKA alignment are commonly described in literature. Patient-specific guiding (PSG) is a new technique for positioning the Oxford UKA. Our hypothesis is that PSG improves component position without affecting the HKA angle.
METHODS: This prospective study compares the results of our first thirty cases of cementless Oxford UKA using PSG with thirty cases using conventional outlining. Baseline characteristics for both groups were identical. Details on handling of the guide, estimated blood loss and operation time were recorded. Postoperative screened radiographs and standing long-leg radiographs of both groups were compared.
RESULTS: Median AP position of the femoral component was 3 degrees varus (-5 to 9) using PSG versus 2 degrees varus (-10 to 8) for the conventional group. For the femoral flexion, this was 9 degrees flexion (0-16) using PSG versus 12 degrees flexion (0-20). The tibial median AP position was 1 degree varus (-3 to 7) using PSG versus 2 degrees varus (-5 to 10). The median tibial posterior slope was 5 degrees (1-10) using PSG versus 5 degrees (0-12). All guides aligned well. No conversion to conventional outlining was performed, and no significant changes had to be made to the original approved plan. Operation time, estimated blood loss and postoperative haemoglobin drop were not significantly different between both groups. DISCUSSION: Implant position was not different between both groups, even in the early phase of the learning curve. Perioperative results were not different between both groups. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24464421     DOI: 10.1007/s00167-014-2849-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc        ISSN: 0942-2056            Impact factor:   4.342


  10 in total

1.  Accuracy of implantation of a unicompartmental total knee arthroplasty with 2 different instrumentations: a case-controlled comparative study.

Authors:  Jean-Yves Jenny; Cyril Boeri
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 4.757

2.  Unicompartmental knee prosthesis implantation with a non-image-based navigation system: rationale, technique, case-control comparative study with a conventional instrumented implantation.

Authors:  Jean-Yves Jenny; Cyril Boeri
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2002-12-18       Impact factor: 4.342

3.  Limb alignment in computer-assisted minimally-invasive unicompartmental knee replacement.

Authors:  G Keene; D Simpson; Y Kalairajah
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2006-01

4.  Correlation of positioning and clinical results in Oxford UKA.

Authors:  Michael Clarius; Christian Hauck; Joern B Seeger; Maria Pritsch; Christian Merle; Peter R Aldinger
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2009-10-09       Impact factor: 3.075

5.  Accuracy of implantation during computer-assisted minimally invasive Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a comparison with a conventional instrumented technique.

Authors:  Kwang Am Jung; Sung Jae Kim; Su Chan Lee; Seung Hyun Hwang; Nong Kyoum Ahn
Journal:  Knee       Date:  2009-11-28       Impact factor: 2.199

6.  Short-term results of the Oxford phase 3 unicompartmental knee arthroplasty for medial arthritis.

Authors:  Atilla Sancar Parmaksizoğlu; Yavuz Kabukçuoğlu; Ufuk Ozkaya; Fuat Bilgili; Armağan Aslan
Journal:  Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc       Date:  2010       Impact factor: 1.511

7.  Evaluation of implant position and knee alignment after patient-specific unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Franz Xaver Koeck; Johannes Beckmann; Christian Luring; Bjoern Rath; Joachim Grifka; Erhan Basad
Journal:  Knee       Date:  2010-08-04       Impact factor: 2.199

8.  The Oxford phase III unicompartmental knee replacement in patients less than 60 years of age.

Authors:  Nanne P Kort; Jos J A M van Raay; Jim J van Horn
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2006-10-07       Impact factor: 4.342

9.  Preliminary experience with the patient-specific templating total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Bert Boonen; Martijn G M Schotanus; Nanne P Kort
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2012-08-10       Impact factor: 3.717

10.  Analysis of Oxford medial unicompartmental knee replacement using the minimally invasive technique in patients aged 60 and above: an independent prospective series.

Authors:  Nanne P Kort; Jos J A M van Raay; John Cheung; Casper Jolink; Robbie Deutman
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2007-08-08       Impact factor: 4.342

  10 in total
  13 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.  Patient-specific instrumentation improves alignment of lateral unicompartmental knee replacements by novice surgeons.

Authors:  Chin Ting Justin Ng; Simon Newman; Simon Harris; Susannah Clarke; Justin Cobb
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2017-05-13       Impact factor: 3.075

3.  Patient-specific instrumentation in Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty is reliable and accurate except for the tibial rotation.

Authors:  B Kerens; A M Leenders; M G M Schotanus; B Boonen; W E Tuinebreijer; P J Emans; B Jong; N P Kort
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2017-12-27       Impact factor: 4.342

4.  The John Insall Award: No Functional Benefit After Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty Performed With Patient-specific Instrumentation: A Randomized Trial.

Authors:  Matthieu Ollivier; Sebastien Parratte; Alexandre Lunebourg; Elke Viehweger; Jean-Noel Argenson
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2016-01       Impact factor: 4.176

5.  Patient-specific positioning guides do not consistently achieve the planned implant position in UKA.

Authors:  Justin A M J van Leeuwen; Stephan M Röhrl
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2016-08-12       Impact factor: 4.342

6.  Medical 3D Printing Cost-Savings in Orthopedic and Maxillofacial Surgery: Cost Analysis of Operating Room Time Saved with 3D Printed Anatomic Models and Surgical Guides.

Authors:  David H Ballard; Patrick Mills; Richard Duszak; Jeffery A Weisman; Frank J Rybicki; Pamela K Woodard
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2019-09-18       Impact factor: 3.173

7.  A high rate of tibial plateau fractures after early experience with patient-specific instrumentation for unicompartmental knee arthroplasties.

Authors:  A M Leenders; M G M Schotanus; R J P Wind; R A P Borghans; N P Kort
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2018-04-30       Impact factor: 4.342

Review 8.  3D-printing techniques in a medical setting: a systematic literature review.

Authors:  Philip Tack; Jan Victor; Paul Gemmel; Lieven Annemans
Journal:  Biomed Eng Online       Date:  2016-10-21       Impact factor: 2.819

9.  The impact of patient-specific instrumentation on unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a prospective randomised controlled study.

Authors:  Abtin Alvand; Tanvir Khan; Cathy Jenkins; Jonathan L Rees; William F Jackson; Christopher A F Dodd; David W Murray; Andrew J Price
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2017-08-22       Impact factor: 4.342

10.  3D printing and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Gareth G Jones; Susannah Clarke; Martin Jaere; Justin Cobb
Journal:  EFORT Open Rev       Date:  2018-05-21
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.