Literature DB >> 27161197

Cementless versus cemented Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: early results of a non-designer user group.

B Kerens1, M G M Schotanus2, B Boonen2, P Boog3, P J Emans4, H Lacroix3, N P Kort2.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Although fewer tibial radiolucent lines are observed in cementless Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) compared with cemented Oxford UKA, an independent comparative study on this topic is lacking.
METHODS: In this multicentre retrospective study, a cohort of 60 consecutive cases of cementless Oxford UKA is compared with a cohort of 60 consecutive cases of cemented Oxford UKA. Radiolucent lines, survival, perioperative data and clinical results were compared.
RESULTS: No complete tibial radiolucent lines were observed in either group. Seventeen per cent of partial tibial radiolucent lines were observed in the cementless group versus 21 % in the cemented group (n.s.). The percentage of tibial radiolucent zones was 4 versus 9 %, respectively (p = 0.036). Survival rates were 90 % at 34 months for the cementless group and 84 % at 54 months for the cemented group (n.s.). Mean operation time was 10 min shorter in the cementless group (p < 0.001), and clinical results were not significantly different.
CONCLUSIONS: Although no significant differences in radiolucent lines were found between both groups, they appear to be more common in the cemented group. This confirms previous results from reports by prosthesis designers. The presence of radiolucent lines after cemented Oxford UKA does not correlate with clinical outcome or survival. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Keywords:  Cemented; Cementless; Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty; Radiolucent lines; Survival

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27161197     DOI: 10.1007/s00167-016-4149-3

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


  26 in total

1.  The Oxford II medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: an independent 10-year survival study.

Authors:  Philippe Zermatten; Urs Munzinger
Journal:  Acta Orthop Belg       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 0.500

2.  Cementless Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement shows reduced radiolucency at one year.

Authors:  H Pandit; C Jenkins; D J Beard; J Gallagher; A J Price; C A F Dodd; J W Goodfellow; D W Murray
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2009-02

3.  Pulsed lavage reduces the incidence of radiolucent lines under the tibial tray of Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: pulsed lavage versus syringe lavage.

Authors:  Michael Clarius; Christian Hauck; Joern B Seeger; Andrew James; David W Murray; Peter R Aldinger
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2009-02-14       Impact factor: 3.075

4.  Cemented versus cementless Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty using radiostereometric analysis: a randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  B J L Kendrick; B L Kaptein; E R Valstar; H S Gill; W F M Jackson; C A F Dodd; A J Price; D W Murray
Journal:  Bone Joint J       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 5.082

5.  The radiolucent line beneath the tibial components of the Oxford meniscal knee.

Authors:  S B Tibrewal; K A Grant; J W Goodfellow
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  1984-08

Review 6.  Cementless unicondylar knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Alexander D Liddle; Hemant Pandit; David W Murray; Christopher A F Dodd
Journal:  Orthop Clin North Am       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 2.472

7.  Polyethylene wear in Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement: a retrieval study of 47 bearings.

Authors:  B J L Kendrick; D Longino; H Pandit; U Svard; H S Gill; C A F Dodd; D W Murray; A J Price
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2010-03

8.  Initial experience with the oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Geoffrey F Dervin; Chris Carruthers; Robert J Feibel; Alan A Giachino; Paul R Kim; Peter R Thurston
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2010-07-29       Impact factor: 4.757

9.  Oxford Phase 3 unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: medium-term results of a minimally invasive surgical procedure.

Authors:  Lukas A Lisowski; Michel P J van den Bekerom; Peter Pilot; C Niek van Dijk; Andrzej E Lisowski
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2010-07-17       Impact factor: 4.342

10.  Patient-specific guide for revision of medial unicondylar knee arthroplasty to total knee arthroplasty: beneficial first results of a new operating technique performed on 10 patients.

Authors:  Bart Kerens; Bert Boonen; Martijn Schotanus; Nanne Kort
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2013-03-15       Impact factor: 3.717

View more
  9 in total

Review 1.  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

2.  [Research progress in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty].

Authors:  Dong Wu; Minzhi Yang; Zheng Cao; Xiangpeng Kong; Yi Wang; Renwen Guo; Wei Chai
Journal:  Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi       Date:  2020-02-15

3.  Results after Cementless Medial Oxford Unicompartmental Knee Replacement - Incidence of Radiolucent Lines.

Authors:  Benjamin Panzram; Ines Bertlich; Tobias Reiner; Tilman Walker; Sébastien Hagmann; Marc-André Weber; Tobias Gotterbarm
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-01-19       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 4.  Midterm Results of Cementless and Cemented Unicondylar Knee Arthroplasty with Mobile Meniscal Bearing: A Prospective Cohort Study.

Authors:  Radosław Stempin; Wiesław Kaczmarek; Kacper Stempin; Julian Dutka
Journal:  Open Orthop J       Date:  2017-10-31

5.  Cementless Oxford Medial Unicompartmental Knee Replacement-Clinical and Radiological Results of 228 Knees with a Minimum 2-Year Follow-Up.

Authors:  Benjamin Panzram; Mira Mandery; Tobias Reiner; Tobias Gotterbarm; Marcus Schiltenwolf; Christian Merle
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2020-05-14       Impact factor: 4.241

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

7.  Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: Current indications, technical issues and results.

Authors:  E Carlos Rodríguez-Merchán; Primitivo Gómez-Cardero
Journal:  EFORT Open Rev       Date:  2018-06-06

Review 8.  Comparable incidence of periprosthetic tibial fractures in cementless and cemented unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Joost A Burger; Tjeerd Jager; Matthew S Dooley; Hendrik A Zuiderbaan; Gino M M J Kerkhoffs; Andrew D Pearle
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2021-02-02       Impact factor: 4.342

9.  Cementless unicompartmental knee arthroplasty results in higher pain levels compared to the cemented technique: a prospective register study.

Authors:  Tone Gifstad; Jørgen Jebens Nordskar; Tarjei Egeberg; Tina Strømdal Wik; Siri Bjørgen Winther
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2021-05-25       Impact factor: 4.114

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.