Literature DB >> 7807113

Revision total knee arthroplasty. Comparison of outcome following primary proximal tibial osteotomy or unicompartmental arthroplasty.

M Jackson1, P P Sarangi, J H Newman.   

Abstract

Forty-three patients who had undergone revision total knee arthroplasty following either primary, medial unicondylar arthroplasty (23 patients) or valgus tibial osteotomy (20 patients) for medial compartment osteoarthritis were reviewed. Although the two groups had similar knee scores and range of motion at review, six patients (30%) who had undergone prior tibial osteotomy suffered serious postoperative complications. Of these, four patients had a deep infection. It was felt that several factors were responsible, resulting largely from difficulties in gaining access to the lateral tibial plateau and subsequently causing impairment of wound vascularity and healing. In contrast, those patients undergoing revision of unicondylar prostheses did not experience wound healing problems, but it was noted that in half of the cases, there was significant bone loss from the medial tibial plateau.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1994        PMID: 7807113     DOI: 10.1016/0883-5403(94)90102-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Arthroplasty        ISSN: 0883-5403            Impact factor:   4.757


  15 in total

1.  The Oxford unicompartmental knee prosthesis: an independent 10-year survival analysis.

Authors:  Peter Vorlat; Guy Putzeys; Dominique Cottenie; Tom Van Isacker; Nicole Pouliart; Frank Handelberg; Pierre-Paul Casteleyn; Filip Gheysen; René Verdonk
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2005-05-14       Impact factor: 4.342

Review 2.  [Revision of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty].

Authors:  S Kirschner; J Lützner; S Fickert; K-P Günther
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 1.087

3.  Total versus partial knee replacement in patients with medial compartment knee osteoarthritis: the TOPKAT RCT.

Authors:  David J Beard; Loretta J Davies; Jonathan A Cook; Graeme MacLennan; Andrew Price; Seamus Kent; Jemma Hudson; Andrew Carr; Jose Leal; Helen Campbell; Ray Fitzpatrick; Nigel Arden; David Murray; Marion K Campbell
Journal:  Health Technol Assess       Date:  2020-04       Impact factor: 4.014

4.  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

Review 5.  [Revision after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty].

Authors:  G Mohr; J Martin; M Clarius
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2014-10       Impact factor: 1.087

6.  [Medial unicondylar knee replacement].

Authors:  O Lorbach; D Pape; P Mosser; D Kohn; K Anagnostakos
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2014-10       Impact factor: 1.087

7.  Partial or total replacement of a unicompartmental knee prosthesis by another unicompartmental knee prosthesis: a reasonable option? About 22 cases.

Authors:  F Lecuire; A Galland; M Basso; H Vinel; J Rubini
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2012-10-16

8.  Revision of 33 unicompartmental knee prostheses using total knee arthroplasty: strategy and results.

Authors:  Dominique Saragaglia; Gilles Estour; Charbel Nemer; Pierre-Emmanuel Colle
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2008-06-18       Impact factor: 3.075

9.  Preclinical evaluation of a novel implant for treatment of a full-thickness distal femoral focal cartilage defect.

Authors:  Erik I Waldorff; Blake J Roessler; Terri A Zachos; Bruce S Miller; Jonathan McHugh; Steven A Goldstein
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2013-03-20       Impact factor: 4.757

Review 10.  Total knee arthroplasty after high tibial osteotomy. A systematic review.

Authors:  Tom M van Raaij; Max Reijman; Andrea D Furlan; Jan A N Verhaar
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2009-07-20       Impact factor: 2.362

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.