Literature DB >> 25645437

Patient-specific implants for lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.

Marco K Demange1, Arvind Von Keudell, Christian Probst, Hiroshi Yoshioka, Andreas H Gomoll.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The lateral compartment of the knee is biomechanically and anatomically different from the medial compartment. Most commercially available unicompartmental implants are not designed specifically for the lateral compartment. Patient-specific custom-made unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) are designed to provide optimal fit on both femoral and tibial surfaces. This study aimed to determine if the use of patient-specific lateral unicompartmental implants provide better bone coverage than standard, off-the-shelf commercially available unicompartmental implants in lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasties. As a secondary question, we wished to determine if patient-specific unicompartmental implants provide good clinical outcomes in surgical treatment of lateral unicompartmental osteoarthritis.
METHODS: We prospectively evaluated 33 patients who underwent lateral unicompartmental arthroplasty using patient-specific implants and instrumentation with a minimum of 24 months of follow-up. We analysed bone coverage observed in plain radiographs in 33 patient-specific lateral unicompartmental arthroplasties and compared to 20 lateral unicompartmental arthroplasties performed with commercially-available, standard off-the-shelf unicondylar implants.
RESULTS: The mean tibial implant lateral coverage mismatch in the patient-specific implant group was 1.0 mm (S.D. 1.2, range 0-5.7 mm ) versus 3.3 mm (S.D. 2.43, range 0.4-7.8 mm) in the conventional implant group (p < 0.01). In the patient specific cohort, pre-operative limb alignment was 3.3 (valgus) and post-operative limb alignment was -0.9 (varus). The Knee Society score improved from 48 (S.D. 16.2) to 95 (S.D. 7.6). Survivorship in the patient-specific implant group was 97% at an average follow up of 37 months, versus 85% at a follow-up period of 32 months for the standard implant group.
CONCLUSIONS: Patient-specific lateral unicompartmental knee replacements demonstrated better tibial coverage and provide excellent short-term clinical and radiological results as compared to a standard lateral UKA.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25645437     DOI: 10.1007/s00264-015-2678-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int Orthop        ISSN: 0341-2695            Impact factor:   3.075


  20 in total

1.  The practice of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in the United Kingdom.

Authors:  Oliver S Schindler; W Norman Scott; Giles R Scuderi
Journal:  J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong)       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 1.118

Review 2.  Lateral unicompartmental replacement: a road less traveled.

Authors:  Richard D Scott
Journal:  Orthopedics       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 1.390

3.  Statistical design of unicompartmental tibial implants and comparison with current devices.

Authors:  Clare Fitzpatrick; David FitzPatrick; Jordan Lee; Daniel Auger
Journal:  Knee       Date:  2006-12-22       Impact factor: 2.199

4.  Lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: survivorship and technical considerations at an average follow-up of 12.4 years.

Authors:  Donald W Pennington; John J Swienckowski; William B Lutes; Gregory N Drake
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2006-01       Impact factor: 4.757

5.  Localization of the full-thickness cartilage lesions in medial and lateral unicompartmental knee osteoarthritis.

Authors:  Aashish Gulati; Ryan Chau; David J Beard; Andrew J Price; Harinderjit S Gill; David W Murray
Journal:  J Orthop Res       Date:  2009-10       Impact factor: 3.494

6.  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

7.  Analysis of the bone surface area in resected tibia. Implications in tibial component subsidence and fixation.

Authors:  R D Bloebaum; K N Bachus; W Mitchell; G Hoffman; A A Hofmann
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1994-12       Impact factor: 4.176

8.  Lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty through a lateral parapatellar approach has high early survivorship.

Authors:  Keith R Berend; Michael C Kolczun; Joseph W George; Adolph V Lombardi
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 4.176

9.  Radiographic patterns and associations of osteoarthritis of the knee in patients referred to hospital.

Authors:  J Ledingham; M Regan; A Jones; M Doherty
Journal:  Ann Rheum Dis       Date:  1993-07       Impact factor: 19.103

10.  Effect of the tibial cut on subsidence following total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  A A Hofmann; K N Bachus; R W Wyatt
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1991-08       Impact factor: 4.176

View more
  16 in total

Review 1.  [New technologies (robotics, custom-made) in unicondylar knee arthroplasty-pro].

Authors:  Malin Meier; Tilman Calliess; Carsten Tibesku; Johannes Beckmann
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2021-02       Impact factor: 1.087

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.  Bearing design influences short- to mid-term survivorship, but not functional outcomes following lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a systematic review.

Authors:  Joost A Burger; Laura J Kleeblad; Inger N Sierevelt; Wieger G Horstmann; Peter A Nolte
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2019-01-28       Impact factor: 4.342

4.  Lateral unicompartmental knee replacement: a systematic review of reasons for failure.

Authors:  Lukas Ernstbrunner; Mohamed A Imam; Octavian Andronic; Tabea Perz; Karl Wieser; Sandro F Fucentese
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2017-10-13       Impact factor: 3.075

Review 5.  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

6.  Biocompatibility of Bespoke 3D-Printed Titanium Alloy Plates for Treating Acetabular Fractures.

Authors:  Xuezhi Lin; Xingling Xiao; Yimeng Wang; Cheng Gu; Canbin Wang; Jiahui Chen; Han Liu; Juan Luo; Tao Li; Di Wang; Shicai Fan
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2018-02-22       Impact factor: 3.411

Review 7.  Biomechanical and Clinical Effect of Patient-Specific or Customized Knee Implants: A Review.

Authors:  Jin-Ah Lee; Yong-Gon Koh; Kyoung-Tak Kang
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2020-05-21       Impact factor: 4.241

8.  Reduction in tibiofemoral conformity in lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty is more representative of normal knee kinematics.

Authors:  Yong-Gon Koh; Jin-Ah Lee; Hwa-Yong Lee; Hyo-Jeong Kim; Hyun-Seok Chung; Kyoung-Tak Kang
Journal:  Bone Joint Res       Date:  2020-01-08       Impact factor: 5.853

9.  The effect of implant position on bone strain following lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: A Biomechanical Model Using Digital Image Correlation.

Authors:  A M Ali; S D S Newman; P A Hooper; C M Davies; J P Cobb
Journal:  Bone Joint Res       Date:  2017-08       Impact factor: 5.853

10.  Evaluation of implant fit and frontal plane alignment after bi-compartmental knee arthroplasty using patient-specific instruments and implants.

Authors:  Joerg Arnholdt; Yama Kamawal; Boris Michael Holzapfel; Axel Ripp; Maximilian Rudert; Andre Friedrich Steinert
Journal:  Arch Med Sci       Date:  2018-10-23       Impact factor: 3.318

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.