Literature DB >> 28144717

[Individualized unicondylar knee replacement : Use of patient-specific implants and instruments].

J Arnholdt1, B M Holzapfel2,3, L Sefrin2, M Rudert2, J Beckmann4, A F Steinert2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Unicompartmental knee replacement in patients with osteoarthritis (OA) of the medial compartment. Individualized instruments and implants with a planning protocol for optimal fit. The individualized instruments and implants (ConforMIS Inc.; Burlington, MA, USA) are manufactured based on a computed tomography scan of the affected lower extremity and are provided together with a planning protocol (iView®) of the surgery. INDICATIONS: Unicompartmental OA of the knee (Kellgren & Lawrence stage IV) or Morbus Ahlbäck after unsuccessful conservative or joint preserving surgery. CONTRAINDICATIONS: Bi- or tricompartmental OA, knee ligament instabilities, knee deformities >15° (varus, valgus, extension deficit). Relative contraindication: body mass index >40. SURGICAL TECHNIQUE: Limited medial arthrotomy, identification of mechanical contact zone of the femoral condyle (linea terminalis); removal of remaining cartilage and all osteophytes that may interfere with the correct placement of the individually designed instruments. Balancing of knee in extension using patient-specific balancing chips of incremental heights. Resection of tibia with a fitted individualized tibial cutting block; confirmation of axial alignment with an extramedullary alignment tower; balancing flexion gap using spacer blocks in 90° flexion. Final femur preparation with the individual cutting instruments. Final tibial preparation with an individual drill jig for the placement of cavities fitting the cement pegs of the prosthesis. Lavage, cementing of implants in 45° of knee flexion, removal of excess cement, and wound closure. POSTOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT: Sterile wound dressing, compressive bandage. Unlimited active/passive range of motion. Functional rehabilitation with partial weight bearing first 2 weeks, then transition to full weight bearing. Clinical/radiographic follow-up directly after surgery, at 12 and 52 weeks, then every 1-2 years.
RESULTS: In all, 31 patients with medial OA (27 medial knee osteoarthritis, 4 osteonecrosis) were treated. Mean age 60 years. Minimum follow-up 17 months. One aseptic loosening needed exchange; one acute late-onset infection with consecutive implant removal. No further revisions/reoperations or complications. X-rays showed an ideal fit of the implant with less than 2 mm subsidence or overhang in all cases. Clinically the VAS changed from 6.51 preoperatively to 1.11 postoperatively. The mean KSS (Knee Society Score) improved from 111.23 preoperatively to 180.61 postoperatively; the functional part of KSS improved from mean 60.39 to 94.51.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Knee joint; Patient-specific implants; Patient-specific instruments; Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty; Unicompartmental knee osteoarthritis

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28144717     DOI: 10.1007/s00064-017-0485-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Oper Orthop Traumatol        ISSN: 0934-6694            Impact factor:   1.154


  17 in total

1.  Sagittal plane kinematics of a mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty at 10 years: a comparative in vivo fluoroscopic analysis.

Authors:  Andrew J Price; Jonathan L Rees; David J Beard; Richie H s Gill; Christopher A f Dodd; David M Murray
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 4.757

2.  Cementing the tibial component in total knee arthroplasty: which technique is the best?

Authors:  Jan Vanlommel; Jean Philippe Luyckx; Luc Labey; Bernardo Innocenti; Ronny De Corte; Johan Bellemans
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2010-04-08       Impact factor: 4.757

3.  Unicondylar knee arthroplasty in the UK National Health Service: an analysis of candidacy, outcome and cost efficacy.

Authors:  Charles A Willis-Owen; Klaus Brust; Helen Alsop; Marisa Miraldo; Justin P Cobb
Journal:  Knee       Date:  2009-05-22       Impact factor: 2.199

4.  Cementing the femoral component in total knee arthroplasty: which technique is the best?

Authors:  Michaël Vaninbroukx; Luc Labey; Bernardo Innocenti; Johan Bellemans
Journal:  Knee       Date:  2009-01-12       Impact factor: 2.199

5.  Total knee arthroplasty has higher postoperative morbidity than unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a multicenter analysis.

Authors:  Nicholas M Brown; Neil P Sheth; Kenneth Davis; Mike E Berend; Adolph V Lombardi; Keith R Berend; Craig J Della Valle
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2012-05-04       Impact factor: 4.757

6.  Tibial plateau coverage in UKA: a comparison of patient specific and off-the-shelf implants.

Authors:  Dylan P Carpenter; Rebecca R Holmberg; Marc J Quartulli; C Lowry Barnes
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2014-03-28       Impact factor: 4.757

7.  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

8.  Participation in sporting activities following knee replacement: total versus unicompartmental.

Authors:  Graeme Philip Hopper; William Joseph Leach
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2008-08-12       Impact factor: 4.342

9.  Patient satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty: who is satisfied and who is not?

Authors:  Robert B Bourne; Bert M Chesworth; Aileen M Davis; Nizar N Mahomed; Kory D J Charron
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 10.  Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: is the glass half full or half empty?

Authors:  D W Murray; A D Liddle; A Liddle; C A F Dodd; H Pandit
Journal:  Bone Joint J       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 5.082

View more
  3 in total

1.  The Impact of Total Knee Replacement with a Customized Cruciate-Retaining Implant Design on Patient-Reported and Functional Outcomes.

Authors:  Andre F Steinert; Lennart Schröder; Lukas Sefrin; Björn Janßen; Jörg Arnholdt; Maximilian Rudert
Journal:  J Pers Med       Date:  2022-01-31

2.  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

3.  Accurate implant fit and leg alignment after cruciate-retaining patient-specific total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Jörg Arnholdt; Yama Kamawal; Konstantin Horas; Boris M Holzapfel; Fabian Gilbert; Axel Ripp; Maximilian Rudert; Andre F Steinert
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2020-10-22       Impact factor: 2.362

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.