Literature DB >> 28744756

Short-term outcome of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in the octogenarian population.

Baha John Tadros1, John Dabis2, Roy Twyman3.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) provides significant benefits to patients with anteromedial osteoarthritis, with good long-term results. Morbidity and mortality rates are lower, and recovery is quicker. These benefits would be advantageous to the octogenarian population whom carry significant comorbidities. The primary aim was to compare the short-term functional outcome at 2 years of UKA in the octogenarian population against a stratified younger cohort of patients. We hypothesised that the octogenarian population would have equally significant improved patient-reported outcome measures.
METHODS: Prospective patient-reported outcome measures, including Oxford Knee Score (OKS), satisfaction rates and Euro-Quol (EQ-5D) scores at 1-year and 2-year post-operative data, were collected and analysed. Three hundred and ninety-five medial Oxford Phase 3 UKA implants were evaluated. Mean follow-up was 4.7 years (range 2.1-7.7). Secondary outcomes including revision rates, length of stay, complications and mortality were recorded. Our patient population was stratified into three cohort groups based on age: 60-69, 70-79 and 80-89 years.
RESULTS: The OKS and EQ-5D score improved significantly in all three groups at all post-operative time periods and maintained at 2 years. The OKS at 2 years post-operatively by age was 39.5 (SD 18.6), 39.2 (SD 17.7) and 39.3 (SD 15.9), respectively. No significant difference of implant survival was found between the groups. The overall revision rate was 28/395 (7%). The 90-day mortality in the present series was one patient.
CONCLUSION: The 2-year short-term functional outcome, revision rates and satisfaction of UKA in the octogenarian population did not differ statistically from other age groups. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Octogenarian; Patient-reported outcome measure; Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28744756     DOI: 10.1007/s00167-017-4639-y

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


  16 in total

1.  Rapid recovery after oxford unicompartmental arthroplasty through a short incision.

Authors:  A J Price; J Webb; H Topf; C A Dodd; J W Goodfellow; D W Murray
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 4.757

2.  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

3.  The five-year radiological results of the uncemented Oxford medial compartment knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  N Hooper; D Snell; G Hooper; R Maxwell; C Frampton
Journal:  Bone Joint J       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 5.082

4.  Optimal usage of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a study of 41,986 cases from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales.

Authors:  A D Liddle; H Pandit; A Judge; D W Murray
Journal:  Bone Joint J       Date:  2015-11       Impact factor: 5.082

5.  The Oxford unicompartmental knee fails at a high rate in a high-volume knee practice.

Authors:  William C Schroer; C Lowry Barnes; Paul Diesfeld; Angela LeMarr; Rachel Ingrassia; Diane J Morton; Mary Reedy
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2013-08-02       Impact factor: 4.176

6.  A randomised trial of all-polyethylene and metal-backed tibial components in unicompartmental arthroplasty of the knee.

Authors:  J R B Hutt; P Farhadnia; V Massé; M LaVigne; P-A Vendittoli
Journal:  Bone Joint J       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 5.082

7.  Patient-reported outcomes after total and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a study of 14,076 matched patients from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales.

Authors:  A D Liddle; H Pandit; A Judge; D W Murray
Journal:  Bone Joint J       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 5.082

8.  A review of mobile bearing unicompartmental knee in patients aged 80 years or older and comparison with younger groups.

Authors:  Pradeep A Ingale; William A Hadden
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2012-07-21       Impact factor: 4.757

9.  Center and surgeon volume influence the revision rate following unicondylar knee replacement: an analysis of 23,400 medial cemented unicondylar knee replacements.

Authors:  Paul Baker; Simon Jameson; Rebecca Critchley; Mike Reed; Paul Gregg; David Deehan
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2013-04-17       Impact factor: 5.284

10.  The clinical outcome of minimally invasive Phase 3 Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a 15-year follow-up of 1000 UKAs.

Authors:  H Pandit; T W Hamilton; C Jenkins; S J Mellon; C A F Dodd; D W Murray
Journal:  Bone Joint J       Date:  2015-11       Impact factor: 5.082

View more
  3 in total

1.  FACTORS AFFECTING THE FUNCTIONAL OUTCOME OF OXFORD PHASE 3 UNICOMPARTMENTAL KNEE ARTHROPLASTY.

Authors:  Ayşe Esin Polat; Bariş Polat; Tahsin Gürpinar; Bariş Peker; Tolga Tüzüner
Journal:  Acta Ortop Bras       Date:  2020 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 0.513

2.  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

3.  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
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.