Literature DB >> 28455471

Five-year clinical and radiological outcomes in 257 consecutive cementless Oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasties.

J Blaney1, H Harty1, E Doran1, S O'Brien1, J Hill1, I Dobie1, D Beverland1.   

Abstract

AIMS: Our aim was to examine the clinical and radiographic outcomes in 257 consecutive Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasties (OUKAs) (238 patients), five years post-operatively. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective evaluation was undertaken of patients treated between April 2008 and October 2010 in a regional centre by two non-designing surgeons with no previous experience of UKAs. The Oxford Knee Scores (OKSs) were recorded and fluoroscopically aligned radiographs were assessed post-operatively at one and five years.
RESULTS: The median age of the 238 patients was 65.0 years (interquartile range (IQR) 59.0 to 73.0), the median body mas index was 30.0 (IQR 27.5 to 33.0) and 51.7% were male. There were no intra-operative complications. There was a significant improvement in the median OKS at six weeks (34, IQR 31.0 to 37.0), one year (38, IQR 29.0 to 43.0) and five years (37, IQR 27.0 to 42.0) when compared with the pre-operative scores (16, IQR 13.0 to 19.0) (all p = < 0.01). No patient had progressive radiolucent lines or loosening. A total of 16 patients had died by five years. The cumulative survival at five years was 98.8% and the mean survival time was 5.8 years (95% confidence interval 5.6 to 5.9). A total of seven OUKAs (2.7%) were revised; three within five years and four thereafter, between 5.1 and 5.7 years post-operatively. Five (1.9%) had re-operations within five years.
CONCLUSION: The proportion of patients requiring revision at five years is lower than that generally reported for UKA. These findings add support for the use of the cementless OUKA outside the design centre. Longer follow-up is required. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:623-31. ©2017 The British Editorial Society of Bone & Joint Surgery.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cementless fixation; Functional outcome; Implant survival; Radiological outcome; Radiolucent lines; Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28455471     DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.99B5.BJJ-2016-0760.R1

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


  10 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.  Regional five-year clinical outcomes of 289 consecutive cementless oxford uni-compartmental knee replacements at a non-inventor centre.

Authors:  R Nandra; H D Rajgor; C Winkworth; N Aslam
Journal:  J Clin Orthop Trauma       Date:  2021-03-20

Review 3.  The Influence of Obesity on Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes: A Systematic Review And Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Hannah Jia Hui Ng; Wei Jie Loke; Wee Liang Hao James
Journal:  Arch Bone Jt Surg       Date:  2021-11

4.  Optimal interference of the tibial component of the cementless Oxford Unicompartmental Knee Replacement.

Authors:  S Campi; S J Mellon; D Ridley; B Foulke; C A F Dodd; H G Pandit; D W Murray
Journal:  Bone Joint Res       Date:  2018-05-05       Impact factor: 5.853

5.  Ten-year clinical and radiographic results of 1000 cementless Oxford unicompartmental knee replacements.

Authors:  Hasan R Mohammad; James A Kennedy; Stephen J Mellon; Andrew Judge; Christopher A Dodd; David W Murray
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2019-06-17       Impact factor: 4.342

6.  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

7.  Unicompartmental knee replacement in patients aged 70 years and older.

Authors:  Alberto Ventura; Claudio Legnani; Enrico Borgo
Journal:  Muscles Ligaments Tendons J       Date:  2018-04-16

8.  Robotic-arm assisted medial unicondylar knee arthroplasty versus jig-based unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with navigation control: study protocol for a prospective randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Babar Kayani; Sujith Konan; Jenni Tahmassebi; Atif Ayuob; Peter D Moriarty; Fares S Haddad
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2020-08-17       Impact factor: 2.279

9.  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 10.  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

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.