Literature DB >> 32592123

Outcomes of cementless fixation in medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: review of recent literature.

M Basso1, E Arnaldi2, A A M Bruno2, M Formica3.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is considered the most effective treatment for anteromedial knee osteoarthritis. Cementless fixation of UKA was developed to reduce aseptic loosening. We performed a review of the recent literature to assess the latest outcomes of cementless UKA.
METHODS: A review of English literature was performed on Medline through Pubmed. Retrospective or prospective studies with at least 2 years of follow-up (FU) and at least 20 patients were included. The PRISMA 2009 flowchart and checklist were considered to edit the review. Survival rate, revision rate, time for revision, incidence of radiolucent lines and reasons for revision (such as aseptic loosening, osteoarthritis progression, bearing dislocation or periprosthetic fracture) were extrapolated from the papers.
RESULTS: Nineteen articles were included in the review, only 2 with a level of evidence of I. A total of 3432 UKA with a FU range of 24-132 months were analyzed. The studies showed good clinical and functional outcomes. In 12 studies, survival rate were more than 90%. Revision rate for aseptic loosening were lower than 2% for 15 studies.
CONCLUSION: Cementless UKA represents a surgical option allowing low revision rate. Further high-quality long-term studies would better clarify complications, clinical and radiological results of this promising fixation method.
© 2020. Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Antromedial osteoarthritis; Aseptic loosening; Cement; Cementless fixation; Radiolucent lines; Survival rates; UKA; Unicompartimental knee arthroplasty

Year:  2020        PMID: 32592123     DOI: 10.1007/s12306-020-00672-w

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Musculoskelet Surg        ISSN: 2035-5114


  15 in total

Review 1.  Why Do Medial Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasties Fail Today?

Authors:  Jelle P van der List; Hendrik A Zuiderbaan; Andrew D Pearle
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2015-12-07       Impact factor: 4.757

2.  Free bone cement fragments after minimally invasive unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: an underappreciated problem.

Authors:  S M Hauptmann; P Weber; C Glaser; C Birkenmaier; V Jansson; P E Müller
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2008-05-31       Impact factor: 4.342

3.  Cemented versus cementless Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty using radiostereometric analysis: a randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  B J L Kendrick; B L Kaptein; E R Valstar; H S Gill; W F M Jackson; C A F Dodd; A J Price; D W Murray
Journal:  Bone Joint J       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 5.082

4.  Cementless Oxford medial unicompartimental knee replacement: an independent series with a 5-year-follow-up.

Authors:  Benjamin Panzram; Ines Bertlich; Tobias Reiner; Tilman Walker; Sébastien Hagmann; Tobias Gotterbarm
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2017-04-24       Impact factor: 3.067

5.  Minimum 10-year follow-up results of ALPINA cementless hydroxyapatite-coated anatomic unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  F Lecuire; J B Berard; S Martres
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2013-03-02

6.  Cementless versus cemented Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: early results of a non-designer user group.

Authors:  B Kerens; M G M Schotanus; B Boonen; P Boog; P J Emans; H Lacroix; N P Kort
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2016-05-09       Impact factor: 4.342

Review 7.  Cementless unicondylar knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Alexander D Liddle; Hemant Pandit; David W Murray; Christopher A F Dodd
Journal:  Orthop Clin North Am       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 2.472

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

Authors:  J Blaney; H Harty; E Doran; S O'Brien; J Hill; I Dobie; D Beverland
Journal:  Bone Joint J       Date:  2017-05       Impact factor: 5.082

9.  Five-year experience of cementless Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement.

Authors:  H G Pandit; S Campi; T W Hamilton; O D Dada; S Pollalis; C Jenkins; C A F Dodd; D W Murray
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2015-11-26       Impact factor: 4.342

10.  Impact of a double-layer cementing technique on the homogeneity of cementation and the generation of loose bone cement fragments in tibial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Christian B Scheele; Matthias F Pietschmann; Christian Schröder; Christian Suren; Thomas M Grupp; Peter E Müller
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2019-11-13       Impact factor: 2.362

View more
  2 in total

Review 1.  Lumbar interbody fusion: recent advances in surgical techniques and bone healing strategies.

Authors:  Bin Meng; Joshua Bunch; Douglas Burton; Jinxi Wang
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2020-09-19       Impact factor: 3.134

2.  Cementless unicompartmental knee arthroplasty results in higher pain levels compared to the cemented technique: a prospective register study.

Authors:  Tone Gifstad; Jørgen Jebens Nordskar; Tarjei Egeberg; Tina Strømdal Wik; Siri Bjørgen Winther
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2021-05-25       Impact factor: 4.114

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.