Literature DB >> 26530651

The clinical outcome of minimally invasive Phase 3 Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a 15-year follow-up of 1000 UKAs.

H Pandit1, T W Hamilton1, C Jenkins2, S J Mellon1, C A F Dodd2, D W Murray3.   

Abstract

There have been concerns about the long-term survival of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA). This prospective study reports the 15-year survival and ten-year functional outcome of a consecutive series of 1000 minimally invasive Phase 3 Oxford medial UKAs (818 patients, 393 men, 48%, 425 women, 52%, mean age 66 years; 32 to 88). These were implanted by two surgeons involved with the design of the prosthesis to treat anteromedial osteoarthritis and spontaneous osteonecrosis of the knee, which are recommended indications. Patients were prospectively identified and followed up independently for a mean of 10.3 years (5.3 to 16.6). At ten years, the mean Oxford Knee Score was 40 (standard deviation (sd) 9; 2 to 48): 79% of knees (349) had an excellent or good outcome. There were 52 implant-related re-operations at a mean of 5.5 years (0.2 to 14.7). The most common reasons for re-operation were arthritis in the lateral compartment (2.5%, 25 knees), bearing dislocation (0.7%, seven knees) and unexplained pain (0.7%, seven knees). When all implant-related re-operations were considered as failures, the ten-year rate of survival was 94% (95% confidence interval (CI) 92 to 96) and the 15-year survival rate 91% (CI 83 to 98). When failure of the implant was the endpoint the 15-year survival was 99% (CI 96 to 100). This is the only large series of minimally invasive UKAs with 15-year survival data. The results support the continued use of minimally invasive UKA for the recommended indications. ©2015 The British Editorial Society of Bone & Joint Surgery.

Entities:  

Keywords:  treatment outcome; unicompartmental knee arthroplasty

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26530651     DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.97B11.35634

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Bone Joint J        ISSN: 2049-4394            Impact factor:   5.082


  63 in total

1.  Effect of age on cost-effectiveness of unicompartimental knee arthroplasty compared with total knee arthroplasty in the US.

Authors:  Francesco Iacono; Giuseppe Filardo
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2015-12

2.  The pertinent question in treatment of unicompartmental osteoarthritis of the knee: high tibial osteotomy or unicondylar knee arthroplasty or total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Roland Becker; Michael Hirschmann
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2017-03       Impact factor: 4.342

3.  Minimally invasive Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty ensures excellent functional outcome and high survivorship in the long term.

Authors:  Tilman Walker; Pit Hetto; Thomas Bruckner; Tobias Gotterbarm; Christian Merle; Benjamin Panzram; Moritz M Innmann; Babak Moradi
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2018-11-21       Impact factor: 4.342

4.  Lateral osteophytes do not represent a contraindication to medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a 15-year follow-up.

Authors:  Thomas W Hamilton; Rajan Choudhary; Cathy Jenkins; Stephen J Mellon; Christopher A F Dodd; David W Murray; Hemant G Pandit
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2016-09-08       Impact factor: 4.342

5.  Does Medial Patellofemoral Osteoarthritis Influence Outcome Scores and Risk of Revision After Fixed-bearing Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty?

Authors:  Y Berger; S Ftaita; E Thienpont
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2019-09       Impact factor: 4.176

6.  Lateral unicompartmental knee replacement for the treatment of arthritis progression after medial unicompartmental replacement.

Authors:  H Pandit; F Mancuso; C Jenkins; W F M Jackson; A J Price; C A F Dodd; D W Murray
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2016-03-26       Impact factor: 4.342

7.  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

8.  The patient results and satisfaction of knee arthroplasty in a validated grading system.

Authors:  Christiaan Rudolf Oosthuizen; Catherine Van Der Straeten; Innocent Maposa; Christian Hugo Snyckers; Duwayne Peter Vermaak; Sebastian Magobotha
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2019-09-12       Impact factor: 3.075

9.  Short-term outcome of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in the octogenarian population.

Authors:  Baha John Tadros; John Dabis; Roy Twyman
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2017-07-25       Impact factor: 4.342

10.  Hip and Knee Section, Treatment, Surgical Technique: Proceedings of International Consensus on Orthopedic Infections.

Authors:  Moneer M Abouljoud; David Backstein; Andrew Battenberg; Matthew Dietz; Alejo Erice; Andrew A Freiberg; Jeffrey Granger; Adam Katchky; Anton Khlopas; Tae-Kyun Kim; Per Kjaersgaard-Andersen; Kyung-Hoi Koo; Yona Kosashvili; Percia Lazarovski; Jennifer Leighton; Adolph Lombardi; Konstantinos Malizos; Jorge Manrique; Michael A Mont; Marianthe Papanagiotoy; Rafael J Sierra; Nipun Sodhi; John Stammers; Maik Stiehler; Timothy L Tan; Katsufumi Uchiyama; Derek Ward; Anna Ziogkou
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2018-10-19       Impact factor: 4.757

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.