Literature DB >> 26725134

Why Do Medial Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasties Fail Today?

Jelle P van der List1, Hendrik A Zuiderbaan1, Andrew D Pearle1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Failure rates are higher in medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) than total knee arthroplasty. To improve these failure rates, it is important to understand why medial UKA fail. Because individual studies lack power to show failure modes, a systematic review was performed to assess medial UKA failure modes. Furthermore, we compared cohort studies with registry-based studies, early with midterm and late failures and fixed-bearing with mobile-bearing implants.
METHODS: Databases of PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane and annual registries were searched for medial UKA failures. Studies were included when they reported >25 failures or when they reported early (<5 years), midterm (5-10 years), or late failures (>10 years).
RESULTS: Thirty-seven cohort studies (4 level II studies and 33 level III studies) and 2 registry-based studies were included. A total of 3967 overall failures, 388 time-dependent failures, and 1305 implant design failures were identified. Aseptic loosening (36%) and osteoarthritis (OA) progression (20%) were the most common failure modes. Aseptic loosening (26%) was most common early failure mode, whereas OA progression was more commonly seen in midterm and late failures (38% and 40%, respectively). Polyethylene wear (12%) and instability (12%) were more common in fixed-bearing implants, whereas pain (14%) and bearing dislocation (11%) were more common in mobile-bearing implants.
CONCLUSION: This level III systematic review identified aseptic loosening and OA progression as the major failure modes. Aseptic loosening was the main failure mode in early years and mobile-bearing implants, whereas OA progression caused most failures in late years and fixed-bearing implants.
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  early failures; failure rate; medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty; modes of failure; reasons of failure; unicompartmental knee arthroplasty

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26725134     DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2015.11.030

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


  45 in total

1.  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

Review 2.  Outcomes of cementless fixation in medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: review of recent literature.

Authors:  M Basso; E Arnaldi; A A M Bruno; M Formica
Journal:  Musculoskelet Surg       Date:  2020-06-26

3.  Survivorship and patient satisfaction of robotic-assisted medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty at a minimum two-year follow-up.

Authors:  Andrew D Pearle; Jelle P van der List; Lily Lee; Thomas M Coon; Todd A Borus; Martin W Roche
Journal:  Knee       Date:  2017-02-06       Impact factor: 2.199

Review 4.  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

5.  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

6.  Clinical results and short-term survivorship of robotic-arm-assisted medial and lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Francesco Zambianchi; Giorgio Franceschi; Elisa Rivi; Federico Banchelli; Andrea Marcovigi; Claudio Khabbazè; Fabio Catani
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2019-06-19       Impact factor: 4.342

7.  A high rate of tibial plateau fractures after early experience with patient-specific instrumentation for unicompartmental knee arthroplasties.

Authors:  A M Leenders; M G M Schotanus; R J P Wind; R A P Borghans; N P Kort
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2018-04-30       Impact factor: 4.342

8.  MRI Findings at the Bone-Component Interface in Symptomatic Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty and the Relationship to Radiographic Findings.

Authors:  Laura Jill Kleeblad; Hendrik A Zuiderbaan; Alissa J Burge; Mark J Amirtharaj; Hollis G Potter; Andrew D Pearle
Journal:  HSS J       Date:  2018-08-23

9.  Accuracy of tibial component positioning in the robotic arm assisted versus conventional unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Jai Thilak; Mohan Thadi; Prajwal P Mane; Anubhav Sharma; Vipin Mohan; Balu C Babu
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2020-08-31

10.  Medial Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty with a Mobile-Bearing Implant.

Authors:  John C Bonano; Andrew A Barrett; Derek F Amanatullah
Journal:  JBJS Essent Surg Tech       Date:  2021-04-19
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.