Literature DB >> 33197810

Management of aseptic failure of the mobile-bearing Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.

Shiraz A Sabah1, Chin Tat Lim2, Robert Middleton3, Lennart von Fritsch3, Nicholas Bottomley4, William F M Jackson4, Andrew J Price5, Abtin Alvand5.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) accounts for 9.1% of primary knee arthroplasties (KAs) in the UK. However, wider uptake is limited by higher revision rates compared with total knee arthroplasties (TKA) and concerns over subsequent poor function. The aim of this study was to understand the revision strategies and clinical outcomes for aseptic, failed UKAs at a high-volume centre.
METHODS: This was a retrospective, single-centre cohort study of 48 patients (31 female, 17 male) with 52 revision UKAs from 2006 to 2018. Median time to revision was 67 (range 4-180) months. Indications for revision were progression of osteoarthritis (n = 31 knees, 59.6%), unexplained pain (n = 10 knees, 19.2%), aseptic loosening (n = 6 knees, 11.5%), medial collateral ligament incompetence (n = 3 knees, 5.8%) and recurrent bearing dislocation (n = 2 knees, 3.8%). Technical details of surgery, complications and functional outcome were recorded.
RESULTS: Failed UKAs were revised to primary TKAs (n = 29 knees, 55.8%), revision TKAs (n = 9 knees, 17.3%), bicompartmental KAs (n = 11 knees, 21.2%), or unicompartmental-to-unicompartmental KAs (n = 3 knees, 5.8%). Median follow up was 81 (range 24-164) months. Four patients (7.7%) died from unrelated causes. No re-revisions were identified. Surgical complications required re-operation in five knees (9.6%). Median Oxford Knee Score at latest follow up was 38 (range 9-48) points and median EQ5D3L index 0.707 (range -0.247 to 1.000).
CONCLUSIONS: Aseptic, revision UKA at a high-volume centre had good clinical outcomes. Bicompartmental KA demonstrated excellent function and should be considered an alternative to TKA for progression of osteoarthritis for appropriately trained surgeons.
Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Clinical outcome; Patient-reported outcome measures; Revision TKA; Revision UKA; Surgical characteristics

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 33197810     DOI: 10.1016/j.knee.2020.10.003

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


  2 in total

1.  [Comparison of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty in the treatment of severe medial compartment osteoarthritis].

Authors:  Qiang Huang; Yi Zeng; Qinsheng Hu; Haibo Si; Yong Nie; Bin Shen
Journal:  Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi       Date:  2021-09-15

2.  Revision total knee replacement case-mix at a major revision centre.

Authors:  Shiraz A Sabah; Lennart von Fritsch; Tanvir Khan; Alexander D Shearman; Raja Bhaskara Rajasekaran; David J Beard; Andrew J Price; Abtin Alvand
Journal:  J Exp Orthop       Date:  2022-04-14
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.