Literature DB >> 25453627

Radiographic comparison of mobile-bearing partial knee single-peg versus twin-peg design.

Jason M Hurst1, Keith R Berend2, Joanne B Adams1, Adolph V Lombardi2.   

Abstract

The femoral component and proprietary instrumentation of a mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) was redesigned with an additional peg for enhanced fixation, 15° of extra femoral surface for contact in deep flexion, more rounded profile, better fit into the milled surface, and redesigned intramedullary based instrumentation. To assess the benefit of these changes, we compared postoperative radiographs of 219 single-peg and 186 twin-peg UKAs done in 2008-2011. All surviving knees demonstrated satisfactory position and alignment with no radiolucencies observed. Radiographic analysis showed improved and consistent component positioning with the twin-peg design implanted with updated instrumentation compared with the single-peg. The radiographic benefits of improved implant positioning using the twin-peg component and updated instrumentation are clear and carry tremendous potential. More robust follow-up is imperative.
Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  component design; instrumentation; partial knee arthroplasty; radiographic analysis; surgical technique; unicompartmental knee arthroplasty

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25453627     DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2014.10.015

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Arthroplasty        ISSN: 0883-5403            Impact factor:   4.757


  8 in total

1.  Early Results of Oxford Mobile Bearing Medial Unicompartmental Knee Replacement (UKR) with the Microplasty Instrumentation: An Indian Experience.

Authors:  Sahil Gaba; Naman Wahal; Deepak Gautam; Hemant Pandit; Vijay Kumar; Rajesh Malhotra
Journal:  Arch Bone Jt Surg       Date:  2018-07

2.  New Instrumentation Improves Patient Satisfaction and Component Positioning for Mobile-Bearing Medial Unicompartmental Knee Replacement.

Authors:  Rajesh Malhotra; Vijay Kumar; Naman Wahal; Arnaud Clavé; James A Kennedy; David W Murray; Hemant Pandit
Journal:  Indian J Orthop       Date:  2019 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 1.251

3.  The results of Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in the United States: a mean ten-year survival analysis.

Authors:  R H Emerson; O Alnachoukati; J Barrington; K Ennin
Journal:  Bone Joint J       Date:  2016-10       Impact factor: 5.082

4.  Early outcomes of twin-peg mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty compared with primary total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Z C Lum; A V Lombardi; J M Hurst; M J Morris; J B Adams; K R Berend
Journal:  Bone Joint J       Date:  2016-10       Impact factor: 5.082

5.  Two pegs are better than one: rare mode of femoral component failure in unicompartmental arthroplasty requiring revision to total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Ryan Stancil; Nathan Summers; Douglas Van Citters; Adam Sassoon
Journal:  Arthroplast Today       Date:  2017-11-22

6.  Femoral migration of the cementless Oxford which caused the bearing dislocation: a report of two cases.

Authors:  Hiroshi Inui; Shuji Taketomi; Ryota Yamagami; Kohei Kawaguchi; Sakae Tanaka
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2020-06-08       Impact factor: 2.362

Review 7.  Does new instrument for Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty improve short-term clinical outcome and component alignment? A meta-analysis.

Authors:  Xiao Wei Sun; Fei Fan Lu; Kun Zou; Mao Hong; Qi Dong Zhang; Wan Shou Guo
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2020-09-07       Impact factor: 2.359

8.  Most unicompartmental knee replacement revisions could be avoided: a radiographic evaluation of revised Oxford knees in the National Joint Registry.

Authors:  James A Kennedy; Jeya Palan; Stephen J Mellon; Colin Esler; Chris A F Dodd; Hemant G Pandit; David W Murray
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2020-02-10       Impact factor: 4.342

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.