Literature DB >> 34824720

No Clinical or Radiographic Differences Between Cemented Cobalt-Chromium and Titanium-Niobium Nitride Mobile-Bearing Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty.

Riccardo D'Ambrosi1, Rafael Loucas2, Marios Loucas2, Riccardo Giorgino3, Nicola Ursino1, Giuseppe Maria Peretti1,3.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of patients with positive patch tests undergoing a medial mobile-bearing titanium-niobium nitride (TiNbN) unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) to patients undergoing standard UKA (cobalt-chromium [CoCr] implants).
METHODS: Two successive groups of patients, amounting to a total of 246 individuals, who received Oxford (Zimmer-Biomet, Warsaw, Indiana, USA) UKA were included. The first group was composed of a series of 203 consecutive standard CoCr UKAs (Standard Group), while the second group comprised 43 consecutive hypoallergenic TiNbN UKAs (HA group). The patients of the second group had a positive epicutaneous patch test result for metals. Each patient was evaluated using the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) and Knee Society Score (KSS) a day prior to the surgery (T 0) and at two consecutive follow-ups, namely T 1 (minimum follow-up of 12 months) and T 2 (minimum follow-up of 34 months). Radiographic measurements were performed at the final follow-up (T 2).
RESULTS: No statistical differences were noted between the two groups regarding demographic data (p > 0.05). No clinical or radiographic differences were found between the HA and standard groups at any follow-up (p > 0.05). A statistically significant improvement was found at any follow-up for both OKS and KSS (p < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: No clinical or radiographic differences between the hypoallergenic and standard cobalt-chromium groups at any follow-up were found, with a clinically significant improvement being experienced by both groups during the entire follow-up. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II-comparative prospective study. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s43465-021-00486-3. © Indian Orthopaedics Association 2021.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Knee osteoarthritis; Metal allergy; Oxford mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty

Year:  2021        PMID: 34824720      PMCID: PMC8586226          DOI: 10.1007/s43465-021-00486-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Indian J Orthop        ISSN: 0019-5413            Impact factor:   1.033


  42 in total

1.  Titanium niobium nitride knee implants are not inferior to chrome cobalt components for primary total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Emmanuel Thienpont
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2015-08-29       Impact factor: 3.067

2.  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

3.  [Contact allergy to metals and bone cement components in patients with intolerance of arthroplasty].

Authors:  R Eben; K-A Dietrich; C Nerz; S Schneider; A Schuh; I J Banke; F Mazoochian; P Thomas
Journal:  Dtsch Med Wochenschr       Date:  2010-07-07       Impact factor: 0.628

4.  A second decade lifetable survival analysis of the Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Andrew J Price; Ulf Svard
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 4.176

5.  No clinical benefit of titanium nitride coating in cementless mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Ruud P van Hove; Richard M Brohet; Barend J van Royen; Peter A Nolte
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2014-10-05       Impact factor: 4.342

6.  Titanium Niobium Nitride Mobile-Bearing Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty Results in Good to Excellent Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes in Metal Allergy Patients With Medial Knee Osteoarthritis.

Authors:  Riccardo D'Ambrosi; Alessandro Nuara; Ilaria Mariani; Fabrizio Di Feo; Nicola Ursino; Michael Hirschmann
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2020-07-21       Impact factor: 4.757

7.  Midterm Results After Coated and Uncoated TKA: A Randomized Controlled Study.

Authors:  Franziska Beyer; Cornelia Lützner; Stephan Kirschner; Jörg Lützner
Journal:  Orthopedics       Date:  2016-05       Impact factor: 1.390

Review 8.  Metal allergy in total-joint arthroplasty: Case report and literature review.

Authors:  Wei Bao; Yao He; Yuanjun Fan; Yueming Liao
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2018-09       Impact factor: 1.817

9.  Improved outcomes in patients with positive metal sensitivity following revision total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Robert L Zondervan; Jonathan J Vaux; Michael J Blackmer; Brett G Brazier; Charles J Taunt
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2019-06-17       Impact factor: 2.359

Review 10.  Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, an enigma, and the ten enigmas of medial UKA.

Authors:  Anurag Mittal; Prashant Meshram; Woo Hyun Kim; Tae Kyun Kim
Journal:  J Orthop Traumatol       Date:  2020-09-02
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.