Literature DB >> 30150067

Ten-year survival and seven-year functional results of cementless Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement: A prospective consecutive series of our first 1000 cases.

S Campi1, H Pandit2, G Hooper3, D Snell3, C Jenkins4, C A F Dodd4, R Maxwell3, D W Murray5.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Cementless fixation is an alternative to cemented unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR), with several advantages over cementation. This study reports the ten-year survival and seven-year clinical outcome of cementless Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement (OUKR).
METHODS: This prospective study describes the clinical outcome and survival of the first 1000 consecutive cementless medial OUKRs implanted at two centres for recommended indications.
RESULTS: The 10-year survival was 97% (CI 95%: 92-100%), with 25 knees being revised. The commonest reason for revision was progression of arthritis laterally, which occurred in nine knees, followed by primary dislocation of the bearing, which occurred in six knees. There were two dislocations secondary to trauma and a ruptured ACL, and two tibial plateau fractures. Although there were no definite cases of aseptic loosening, two early revisions were related to tibial fixation: one for pain and a radiolucent line and one for incomplete seating of the component with a radiolucent line. There were four revisions for pain, but the cause of the pain was uncertain: in one there was tibial overhang and in two there was patellofemoral degeneration, which possibly contributed to the pain. There were no deep infections. The mean OKS improved from 23 (SD 8) to 42 (SD 7) at a mean follow-up of 7.0 years (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in survival or clinical outcome between the designer and independent centre.
CONCLUSIONS: The cementless OUKR is a safe and reproducible procedure with excellent 10-year survival and clinical results in the hands of both designer and independent surgeons.
Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cementless; UKR; Unicompartmental knee replacement

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30150067     DOI: 10.1016/j.knee.2018.07.012

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Knee        ISSN: 0968-0160            Impact factor:   2.199


  9 in total

1.  Minimally invasive Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty ensures excellent functional outcome and high survivorship in the long term.

Authors:  Tilman Walker; Pit Hetto; Thomas Bruckner; Tobias Gotterbarm; Christian Merle; Benjamin Panzram; Moritz M Innmann; Babak Moradi
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2018-11-21       Impact factor: 4.342

Review 2.  Highlighting the advantages and benefits of cementless total knee arthroplasty (Review).

Authors:  Bogdan Uivaraseanu; Cosmin Mihai Vesa; Delia Mirela Tit; Octavian Maghiar; Teodor Andrei Maghiar; Calin Hozan; Aurelia Cristina Nechifor; Tapan Behl; Felicia Liana Andronie-Cioara; Jenel Marian Patrascu; Simona Bungau
Journal:  Exp Ther Med       Date:  2021-11-18       Impact factor: 2.447

3.  A direct referencing method of the tibial plateau for the posterior tibial slope in medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Masao Akagi; Hisafumi Aya; Shigeshi Mori; Nobuhisa Syogaku; Ichiro Tsukamoto; Akihiro Moritake
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2022-06-25       Impact factor: 2.677

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

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

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.  Radiological outcomes following manual and robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Gregory S Kazarian; Robert L Barrack; Toby N Barrack; Charles M Lawrie; Ryan M Nunley
Journal:  Bone Jt Open       Date:  2021-03

8.  The Anterior Impingement After Mobile-Bearing Unicomparimental Knee Arthroplasty-A Neglected Problem. A Clinical Report of 14 Cases.

Authors:  Timon Röttinger; Leonard Lisitano; Andreas Wiedl; Edgar Mayr; Heinz Röttinger
Journal:  Arthroplast Today       Date:  2022-08-19

Review 9.  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

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.