Literature DB >> 33854945

Regional five-year clinical outcomes of 289 consecutive cementless oxford uni-compartmental knee replacements at a non-inventor centre.

R Nandra1, H D Rajgor1, C Winkworth1, N Aslam1.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Uncemented unicompartmental knee replacement offers a minimally invasive approach, faster rehabilitation and good levels of function, supported by evidence reporting low intra-operative fracture rate and mid-term stability with no implant migration at 5-years. Our aim was to examine the clinical outcomes in 289 consecutive Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasties (257 patients), five years post-operatively.
METHODS: A retrospective study of patients treated between 2008 and 2014 in a non-inventor centre by a single surgeon was performed. Patients with anteromedial bone on bone uni-compartmental arthritis were included. Oxford Knee Scores (OKSs) at last follow-up were recorded, intra-operative complications reported with commentary on revision cases.
RESULTS: Mean age of patients was 66 years (SD 9.6, 45-88 years). 122 (42%) patients were female and 135 (58%) were male. Patient in our study were ASA 1 (36%), ASA 2 (62%) and ASA 3 (01%). There were no intra-operative complications, particularly tibia fractures during impaction. The average oxford knee score was 40.1 (n = 232, Range 06 to 48, SD 8.46) at an average 6 years and 3 months from surgery, including revised patients. Six patients had their prosthesis revised within five-years of the index surgery. Five-year cumulative implant survival rate was 97.8% (95% CI 97.62 to 97.98, SE 0.09). Indications for revision were: lateral side wear (n = 1); dislocated spacer (n = 4); instability and spacer subluxation (n = 1). Thirteen patients died within five years of surgery Five-year cumulative survival rate was 94.9% (95% CI 94.87 to 94.925, SE 0.013).
CONCLUSION: The proportion of patients requiring revision at five-years is lower than that generally reported for UKR. These findings add support for the use of the cementless oxford UKR outside the design centre. Crown
Copyright © 2021 All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Knee arthroplasty; Unicompartmental knee replacement

Year:  2021        PMID: 33854945      PMCID: PMC8039718          DOI: 10.1016/j.jcot.2021.03.012

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Orthop Trauma        ISSN: 0976-5662


  12 in total

1.  Extended sagittal saw cut significantly reduces fracture load in cementless unicompartmental knee arthroplasty compared to cemented tibia plateaus: an experimental cadaver study.

Authors:  J B Seeger; D Haas; S Jäger; E Röhner; S Tohtz; M Clarius
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2011-10-15       Impact factor: 4.342

2.  [Medial unicompartmental knee replacement using the "Oxford Uni" meniscal bearing knee].

Authors:  P R Aldinger; M Clarius; D W Murray; J W Goodfellow; S J Breusch
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 1.087

3.  Cementless fixation in Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement: a multicentre study of 1000 knees.

Authors:  A D Liddle; H Pandit; S O'Brien; E Doran; I D Penny; G J Hooper; P J Burn; C A F Dodd; D E Beverland; A R Maxwell; D W Murray
Journal:  Bone Joint J       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 5.082

4.  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

5.  Revision of Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty to Total Knee Arthroplasty: Is It as Good as a Primary Result?

Authors:  Adolph V Lombardi; Mark T Kolich; Keith R Berend; Michael J Morris; David A Crawford; Joanne B Adams
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2018-03-17       Impact factor: 4.757

6.  Adverse outcomes after total and unicompartmental knee replacement in 101,330 matched patients: a study of data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales.

Authors:  Alexander D Liddle; Andrew Judge; Hemant Pandit; David W Murray
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2014-10-18       Impact factor: 79.321

Review 7.  Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: is the glass half full or half empty?

Authors:  D W Murray; A D Liddle; A Liddle; C A F Dodd; H Pandit
Journal:  Bone Joint J       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 5.082

Review 8.  Choosing Between Unicompartmental and Total Knee Replacement: What Can Economic Evaluations Tell Us? A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Edward Burn; Alexander D Liddle; Thomas W Hamilton; Sunil Pai; Hemant G Pandit; David W Murray; Rafael Pinedo-Villanueva
Journal:  Pharmacoecon Open       Date:  2017-12

9.  Patient relevant outcomes of unicompartmental versus total knee replacement: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Hannah A Wilson; Rob Middleton; Simon G F Abram; Stephanie Smith; Abtin Alvand; William F Jackson; Nicholas Bottomley; Sally Hopewell; Andrew J Price
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2019-02-21

10.  Radiological Decision Aid to determine suitability for medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: development and preliminary validation.

Authors:  T W Hamilton; H G Pandit; A V Lombardi; J B Adams; C R Oosthuizen; A Clavé; C A F Dodd; K R Berend; D W Murray
Journal:  Bone Joint J       Date:  2016-10       Impact factor: 5.082

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.