Literature DB >> 24972998

Tibial component alignment and risk of loosening in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a radiographic and radiostereometric study.

P Barbadoro1, A Ensini, A Leardini, M d'Amato, A Feliciangeli, A Timoncini, F Amadei, C Belvedere, S Giannini.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) has shown a higher rate of revision compared with total knee arthroplasty. The success of UKA depends on prosthesis component alignment, fixation and soft tissue integrity. The tibial cut is the crucial surgical step. The hypothesis of the present study is that tibial component malalignment is correlated with its risk of loosening in UKA.
METHODS: This study was performed in twenty-three patients undergoing primary cemented unicompartmental knee arthroplasties. Translations and rotations of the tibial component and the maximum total point motion (MTPM) were measured using radiostereometric analysis at 3, 6, 12 and 24 months. Standard radiological evaluations were also performed immediately before and after surgery. Varus/valgus and posterior slope of the tibial component and tibial-femoral axes were correlated with radiostereometric micro-motion. A survival analysis was also performed at an average of 5.9 years by contacting patients by phone.
RESULTS: Varus alignment of the tibial component was significantly correlated with MTPM, anterior tibial sinking, varus rotation and anterior and medial translations from radiostereometry. The posterior slope of the tibial component was correlated with external rotation. The survival rate at an average of 5.9 years was 89%. The two patients who underwent revision presented a tibial component varus angle of 10° for both.
CONCLUSIONS: There is correlation between varus orientation of the tibial component and MTPM from radiostereometry in unicompartmental knee arthroplasties. Particularly, a misalignment in varus larger than 5° could lead to risk of loosening the tibial component. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic studies-retrospective study, Level II.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24972998     DOI: 10.1007/s00167-014-3147-6

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


  34 in total

1.  The introduction period of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty is critical: a clinical, clinical multicentered, and radiostereometric study of 251 Duracon unicompartmental knee arthroplasties.

Authors:  A Lindstrand; A Stenström; L Ryd; S Toksvig-Larsen
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2000-08       Impact factor: 4.757

2.  The effects of tibial component inclination on bone stress after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  K Iesaka; H Tsumura; H Sonoda; T Sawatari; M Takasita; T Torisu
Journal:  J Biomech       Date:  2002-07       Impact factor: 2.712

3.  Revision after total knee arthroplasty and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in the Medicare population.

Authors:  Brian Curtin; Arthur Malkani; Edmund Lau; Steven Kurtz; Kevin Ong
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2012-04-03       Impact factor: 4.757

4.  Three-dimensional finite element analysis of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty--the influence of tibial component inclination.

Authors:  T Sawatari; H Tsumura; K Iesaka; Y Furushiro; T Torisu
Journal:  J Orthop Res       Date:  2005-03-23       Impact factor: 3.494

5.  Making your next unicompartmental knee arthroplasty last: three keys to success.

Authors:  Leo A Whiteside
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 4.757

6.  Failure mechanisms after unicompartmental and tricompartmental primary knee replacement with cement.

Authors:  O Furnes; B Espehaug; S A Lie; S E Vollset; L B Engesaeter; L I Havelin
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 5.284

7.  Minimally invasive unicompartmental knee replacement: retrospective clinical and radiographic evaluation of 83 patients.

Authors:  Danilo Bruni; Francesco Iacono; Alessandro Russo; Stefano Zaffagnini; Giulio Maria Marcheggiani Muccioli; Simone Bignozzi; Laura Bragonzoni; Maurilio Marcacci
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2009-09-18       Impact factor: 4.342

8.  Radiological changes five years after unicompartmental knee replacement.

Authors:  A E Weale; D W Murray; J Baines; J H Newman
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2000-09

9.  A comparative study of the medial St Georg sled and kinematic total knee arthroplasties. Ten-year survivorship.

Authors:  C E Ackroyd; S L Whitehouse; J H Newman; C C Joslin
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2002-07

Review 10.  Early migration of tibial components is associated with late revision: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 21,000 knee arthroplasties.

Authors:  Bart G Pijls; Edward R Valstar; Klaas-Auke Nouta; Josepha Wm Plevier; Marta Fiocco; Saskia Middeldorp; Rob Ghh Nelissen
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2012-11-09       Impact factor: 3.717

View more
  20 in total

Review 1.  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

2.  Tibial component rotation during the unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: is the anterior superior iliac spine an appropriate landmark?

Authors:  Seung-Yup Lee; Suhwoo Chay; Hong-Chul Lim; Ji-Hoon Bae
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2016-06-08       Impact factor: 4.342

3.  Long-term survival is similar between closed-wedge high tibial osteotomy and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in patients with similar demographics.

Authors:  Sang Jun Song; Dae Kyung Bae; Kang Il Kim; Cheol Hee Park
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2019-02-04       Impact factor: 4.342

4.  Robot-assisted vs. conventional unicompartmental knee arthroplasty : Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Jun Fu; Yuning Wang; Xiang Li; Baozhan Yu; Ming Ni; Wei Chai; Libo Hao; Jiying Chen
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2018-12       Impact factor: 1.087

Review 5.  Current state of computer navigation and robotics in unicompartmental and total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review with meta-analysis.

Authors:  Jelle P van der List; Harshvardhan Chawla; Leo Joskowicz; Andrew D Pearle
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2016-09-06       Impact factor: 4.342

6.  Does final component alignment correlate with alignment of the bone resection surfaces in cemented total knee arthroplasty?

Authors:  Seung-Suk Seo; Chang-Wan Kim; Chang-Rack Lee; Jin-Hyuk Seo; Do-Hun Kim; Ok-Gul Kim; Young-Kyoung Min
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2016-11-08       Impact factor: 4.342

Review 7.  Robotic-assisted surgery in medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: does it improve the precision of the surgery and its clinical outcomes? Systematic review.

Authors:  Roberto Negrín; Gonzalo Ferrer; Magaly Iñiguez; Jaime Duboy; Manuel Saavedra; Nicolas Reyes Larraín; Nicolas Jabes; Maximiliano Barahona
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2020-10-27

8.  Risk factors of post-operative malalignment in fixed-bearing medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Ji Hyun Ahn; Ho Won Kang; Tae Yeong Yang; Jang Yun Lee
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2015-10-10       Impact factor: 3.075

9.  Dependence of knee range of motion on the alignment of femoral and tibial components after medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Mitsuru Hanada; Kensuke Hotta; Yukihiro Matsuyama
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2020-08-20

10.  Femorotibial alignment measured during robotic assisted knee surgery is reliable: radiologic and gait analysis.

Authors:  Etienne Deroche; Alexandre Naaim; Timothy Lording; Raphael Dumas; Elvire Servien; Laurence Cheze; Sébastien Lustig; Cécile Batailler
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2021-07-03       Impact factor: 3.067

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.