Literature DB >> 31182346

Midterm clinical and radiographic outcomes of 115 consecutive patient-specific unicompartmental knee arthroplasties.

Andreas Flury1, Julian Hasler2, Dimitris Dimitriou2, Alexander Antoniadis2, Michael Finsterwald2, Naeder Helmy2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Poor implant positioning has been identified as a factor in early failure of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. The aim of this study was to report the accuracy of component positioning, and midterm clinical, functional and radiological outcomes following patient-specific instrumented (PSI) unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA).
METHODS: A total of 115 PSI-UKA were included. The primary outcomes were UKA survival, complication, and failure rates. Tibial implant positioning was determined using plain radiographs. Functional assessment included Oxford Knee Score (OKS), Forgotten Joint Score (FJS), patient satisfaction, and range of motion (ROM).
RESULTS: The survival rate of PSI-UKA was 92% after a mean follow-up of 55 months. The complication and failure rate was 13% and eight percent, respectively. The tibial component was accurately implanted in the desired frontal and sagittal alignment with a minor deviation of 0.3° (SD 1.9°) and 0.4° (SD 2.6°) to the preoperative planning. OKS increased from 24 (SD eight) points to 44 (SD six). FJS was 87 (SD 23) and 89.6% of all patients reported to be satisfied at the final follow-up. Patient satisfaction was negatively correlated with patients' age (p < 0.05).
CONCLUSION: Excellent accuracy regarding component placement in UKA can be achieved with PSI. However, despite excellent survivorship and clinical outcomes, these data indicate that the PSI system is not superior to conventional UKA implantation methods.
Copyright © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Component alignment; Patient satisfaction; Patient-specific instrumentation; Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31182346     DOI: 10.1016/j.knee.2019.05.006

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


  4 in total

Review 1.  [New technologies (robotics, custom-made) in unicondylar knee arthroplasty-pro].

Authors:  Malin Meier; Tilman Calliess; Carsten Tibesku; Johannes Beckmann
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2021-02       Impact factor: 1.087

2.  Posterior condylar offset and posterior tibial slope targets to optimize knee flexion after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Yong Zhi Khow; Ming Han Lincoln Liow; Merrill Lee; Jerry Yongqiang Chen; Ngai Nung Lo; Seng Jin Yeo
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2021-01-29       Impact factor: 4.342

3.  The impact of limb loading and the measurement modality (2D versus 3D) on the measurement of the limb loading dependent lower extremity parameters.

Authors:  Lukas Jud; Tabitha Roth; Philipp Fürnstahl; Lazaros Vlachopoulos; Reto Sutter; Sandro F Fucentese
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2020-06-30       Impact factor: 2.362

4.  Patient-reported outcome after patient-specific unicondylar knee arthroplasty for unicompartmental knee osteoarthritis.

Authors:  Viola Freigang; Markus Rupp; Christian Pfeifer; Michael Worlicek; Stefan Radke; Stephan Deckelmann; Volker Alt; Florian Baumann
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2020-11-24       Impact factor: 2.362

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.