Literature DB >> 25343874

Is isolated insert exchange a valuable choice for polyethylene wear in metal-backed unicompartmental knee arthroplasty?

Alexandre Lunebourg1,2, Sébastien Parratte3,4, Alexandre Galland1,2, François Lecuire5, Matthieu Ollivier1,2, Jean-Noël Argenson1,2.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcome and survival rate after isolated liner exchange for polyethylene (PE) wear in well-fixed metal-backed fixed-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA).
METHODS: Twenty medial UKAs in 19 patients [mean age 68.7 years ± 8.7 (range 48.5-81.5 years)] operated on for a direct PE liner exchange after isolated PE wear between 1996 and 2010 in two institutions were retrospectively reviewed. The mean delay between the index operation and revision was 8.2 years ± 2.6 (range 4.8-12.8 years). A four-level satisfaction questionnaire was used, and clinical outcomes were assessed using Knee Society scores (KSS) and range of motion (ROM) evaluation. Radiological evaluation analysed the position of the implants and progression of the disease. Survival rate of the implants was evaluated using Kaplan-Meier analysis with two different end-points.
RESULTS: At the last follow-up [mean 6.8 years ± 5.2 (range 1.1-15.9 years)], 15 patients (79 %) were enthusiastic or satisfied. KSS improved from 73.4 to 86.4 points (p = 0.01) and function from 58.9 to 89.2 points (p < 0.001). ROM at last FU was 126.5° ± 10.3°. The survival rate at 12 years considering "revision for any reason" as the end-point was 71.3 ± 15.3 %, and the survival rate at 12 years considering "revision of UKA to TKA" as the end-point was 93.3 ± 6.4 %.
CONCLUSION: Isolated liner exchange for PE wear in well-fixed metal-backed fixed-bearing UKA represents a valuable treatment option in selective patients with durable improvement of clinical outcomes without compromising any future revision. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Retrospective therapeutic study, Level IV.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Clinical outcome; Implant survival rate; Isolated replacement of polyethylene; Polyethylene wear; Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25343874     DOI: 10.1007/s00167-014-3392-8

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


  33 in total

1.  In vivo determination of knee kinematics for subjects implanted with a unicompartmental arthroplasty.

Authors:  Jean-Noël A Argenson; Richard D Komistek; Jean-Manuel Aubaniac; Douglas A Dennis; Eric J Northcut; Dylan T Anderson; Serge Agostini
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 4.757

2.  Polyethylene thickness in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Krishna Lingaraj; Hayden Morris; John Bartlett
Journal:  Knee       Date:  2010-05-26       Impact factor: 2.199

3.  Early failure of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty leading to revision.

Authors:  Thomas J Aleto; Michael E Berend; Merrill A Ritter; Philip M Faris; R Michael Meneghini
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 4.757

4.  Yearly incidence of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in the United States.

Authors:  Daniel L Riddle; William A Jiranek; Fred J McGlynn
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2007-11-26       Impact factor: 4.757

5.  Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with the oxford prosthesis in patients with medial compartment arthritis.

Authors:  Roger H Emerson; Linda L Higgins
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 5.284

6.  Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Clinical experience at 6- to 10-year followup.

Authors:  R A Berger; D D Nedeff; R M Barden; M M Sheinkop; J J Jacobs; A G Rosenberg; J O Galante
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1999-10       Impact factor: 4.176

7.  The effect of conformity, thickness, and material on stresses in ultra-high molecular weight components for total joint replacement.

Authors:  D L Bartel; V L Bicknell; T M Wright
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1986-09       Impact factor: 5.284

8.  Results of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty at a minimum of ten years of follow-up.

Authors:  Richard A Berger; R Michael Meneghini; Joshua J Jacobs; Mitchell B Sheinkop; Craig J Della Valle; Aaron G Rosenberg; Jorge O Galante
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 5.284

9.  Tibial high-density polyethylene wear in conforming tibiofemoral prostheses.

Authors:  P Plante-Bordeneuve; M A Freeman
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  1993-07

Review 10.  Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: technique through a mini-incision.

Authors:  Jean-Noel A Argenson; Sebastien Parratte; Xavier Flecher; Jean-Manuel Aubaniac
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2007-11       Impact factor: 4.176

View more
  2 in total

1.  Analysis of in-vivo articular cartilage contact surface of the knee during a step-up motion.

Authors:  Peng Yin; Jing-Sheng Li; Willem A Kernkamp; Tsung-Yuan Tsai; Seung-Hoon Baek; Ali Hosseini; Lin Lin; Peifu Tang; Guoan Li
Journal:  Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)       Date:  2017-09-08       Impact factor: 2.063

2.  Mid-Term Outcomes of Metal-Backed Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty Show Superiority to All-Polyethylene Unicompartmental and Total Knee Arthroplasty.

Authors:  Jelle P van der List; Laura J Kleeblad; Hendrik A Zuiderbaan; Andrew D Pearle
Journal:  HSS J       Date:  2017-05-12
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.