Literature DB >> 28439705

Cementless Oxford medial unicompartimental knee replacement: an independent series with a 5-year-follow-up.

Benjamin Panzram1, Ines Bertlich1, Tobias Reiner1, Tilman Walker1, Sébastien Hagmann1, Tobias Gotterbarm2.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Cemented unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) has proven excellent long-term survival rates and functional scores in Price et al. (Clin Orthop Relat Res 435:171-180, 2005), Price and Svard (Clin Orthop Relat Res 469(1):174-179, 2011) and Murray et al. (Bone Joint Surg Br 80(6):983-989, 1998). The main causes for revision, aseptic loosening and pain of unknown origin might be addressed by cementless UKR in Liddle et al. (Bone Joint J 95-B(2):181-187, 2013), Pandit et al. (J Bone Joint Surg Am 95(15):1365-1372, 2013), National Joint Registry for England, Wales and Northern Ireland: 10th Annual Report 2013 ( http://www.njrcentre.org.uk/njrcentre/Portals/0/Documents/England/Reports/10th_annual_report/NJR%2010th%20Annual%20Report%202013%20B.pdf , 2013), Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Register: Annual Report 2013 ( http://www.myknee.se/pdf/SKAR2013_Eng.pdf , 2013).
METHODS: This single-centre retrospective cohort study reports the 5-year follow-up results of our first 30 consecutively implanted cementless Oxford UKR (OUKR). Clinical outcome was measured using the OKS, AKSS, range of movement and level of pain (visual analogue scale). The results were compared to cemented OUKR in a matched-pair analysis.
RESULTS: Implant survival was 89.7%. One revision each was performed due to tibial fracture, progression of osteoarthritis (OA) and inlay dislocation. The 5-year survival rate of the cementless group was 89.7% and of the cemented group 94.1%. Both groups showed excellent postoperative clinical scores.
CONCLUSIONS: Cementless fixation shows good survival rates and clinical outcome compared to cemented fixation.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cementless UKR; OUKR outcome; Oxford medial; Survival; Tibial fracture

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28439705     DOI: 10.1007/s00402-017-2696-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg        ISSN: 0936-8051            Impact factor:   3.067


  6 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.  Medium-term outcome of cementless, mobile-bearing, unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Radosław Stempin; Kacper Stempin; Wiesław Kaczmarek
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2019-02

3.  Do patient-specific instruments (PSI) for UKA allow non-expert surgeons to achieve the same saw cut accuracy as expert surgeons?

Authors:  Gareth G Jones; K Logishetty; S Clarke; R Collins; M Jaere; S Harris; J P Cobb
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2018-09-03       Impact factor: 3.067

4.  Mid-term Clinical and Radiological Results of Oxford Phase 3 Medial Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty.

Authors:  Yusuf Erdem; Cagri Neyisci; Cemil Yıldız
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2019-09-16

5.  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 6.  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

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.