Literature DB >> 28641970

The Interaction of Caseload and Usage in Determining Outcomes of Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: A Meta-Analysis.

Thomas W Hamilton1, James M Rizkalla1, Leonidas Kontochristos1, Barbara E Marks1, Stephen J Mellon1, Christopher A F Dodd2, Hemant G Pandit3, David W Murray4.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Outcomes after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) are variable and influenced by caseload (UKA/y) and usage (percentage of knee arthroplasty that are UKA), which relates to indications. This meta-analysis assesses the relative importance of these factors.
METHODS: MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), and Web of Science (ISI) were searched for consecutive series of cemented Phase 3 Oxford medial UKA. The primary outcome was revision rate/100 observed component years (% pa) with subgroup analysis based on caseload and usage.
RESULTS: Forty-six studies (12,520 knees) with an annual revision-rate ranging from 0% to 4.35% pa, mean 1.21% pa (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.97-1.47), were identified. In series with mean follow-up of 10-years, the revision-rate was 0.63% pa (95% CI, 0.46-0.83), equating to a 94% (95% CI, 92%-95%) 10-year survival. Aseptic loosening, lateral arthritis, bearing dislocation, and unexplained pain were the predominant failure mechanisms with revision for patellofemoral problems and polyethylene wear exceedingly rare. The lowest revision-rates were achieved with caseload >24 UKA/y (0.88% pa; 95% CI, 0.63-1.61) and usage >30% (0.69% pa; 95% CI, 0.50-0.90). Usage was more important than caseload; with high usage (≥20%), the revision-rate was low, whether the caseload was high (>12 UKA/y) or low (≤12 UKA/y; (0.94% pa; 95% CI, 0.69-1.23 and 0.85% pa; 95% CI, 0.65-1.08), respectively); with low usage (<20%), the revision-rate was high, whether the caseload was high or low (1.58% pa; 95% CI, 0.57-3.05 and 1.76% pa; 95% CI, 1.21-2.41, respectively).
CONCLUSION: To achieve optimum results, surgeons, whether high or low caseload, should adhere to the recommended indications such that ≥20%, or ideally >30% of their knee arthroplasties are UKA. If they do this, then they can expect to achieve results similar to those of the long-term series, which all had high usage (>20%) and an average 10-year survival of 94%.
Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  implant survival; meta-analysis; surgical caseload; surgical usage; unicompartmental knee arthroplasty

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28641970     DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2017.04.063

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


  24 in total

1.  Anatomy-mimetic design preserves natural kinematics of knee joint in patient-specific mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Yong-Gon Koh; Jin-Ah Lee; Hwa-Yong Lee; Heoung-Jae Chun; Hyo-Jeong Kim; Kyoung-Tak Kang
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2019-05-23       Impact factor: 4.342

2.  The effect of body mass index on the outcomes of cementless medial mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee replacements.

Authors:  Hasan Raza Mohammad; Stephen Mellon; Andrew Judge; Christopher Dodd; David Murray
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2021-04-17       Impact factor: 4.342

3.  The forgotten joint score in total and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a prospective cohort study.

Authors:  Geert Peersman; Jeroen Verhaegen; Barbara Favier
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2019-05-21       Impact factor: 3.075

Review 4.  Unicompartmental knee replacement - Current perspectives.

Authors:  Stefano Campi; Saket Tibrewal; Rory Cuthbert; Sheo B Tibrewal
Journal:  J Clin Orthop Trauma       Date:  2017-11-28

5.  CT Morphometric Analysis of Medial Tibial Condyles: Are the Currently Available Designs of Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty Suitable for Indian Knees?

Authors:  Radhakrishna Kantanavar; Mohan Madhav Desai; Hemant Pandit
Journal:  Indian J Orthop       Date:  2021-05-27       Impact factor: 1.033

Review 6.  Unicondylar knee replacement versus total knee replacement for the treatment of medial knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Meichao Deng; Yang Hu; Zhongzu Zhang; Hongjun Zhang; Yiming Qu; Gaohai Shao
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2021-01-29       Impact factor: 3.067

Review 7.  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

8.  Cost-effectiveness of unicompartmental compared with total knee replacement: a population-based study using data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales.

Authors:  Edward Burn; Alexander D Liddle; Thomas W Hamilton; Andrew Judge; Hemant G Pandit; David W Murray; Rafael Pinedo-Villanueva
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2018-04-29       Impact factor: 2.692

9.  Outcomes and early revision rate after medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: prospective results from a non-designer single surgeon.

Authors:  Jonathan R B Hutt; Avtar Sur; Hartej Sur; Aine Ringrose; Mark S Rickman
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2018-05-29       Impact factor: 2.362

10.  Update on unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: Current indications and failure modes.

Authors:  Michele Vasso; Alexander Antoniadis; Naeder Helmy
Journal:  EFORT Open Rev       Date:  2018-08-01
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.