Literature DB >> 8425335

Unicondylar knee arthroplasty. An evaluation of selection criteria.

S H Stern1, M W Becker, J N Insall.   

Abstract

In a prospective evaluation of 165 consecutive patients (228 knees), intraoperative evaluation of the knees was performed at the time of total knee arthroplasty. Each of the three knee compartments was independently graded for arthritic changes depending on the extent of articular degeneration visualized. Patients were believed to be suitable candidates for unicondylar knee arthroplasty (UKA) if they fulfilled the Kozinn and Scott criteria. Specific attention was given to patient age, weight, preoperative range of motion, angular deformity, as well as the extent of intraoperative cartilage erosions seen. Thirty-five knees (15%) were candidates for UKA based solely on inspection of the articular surfaces at the time of surgery. Further analysis revealed that of these 35 knees, 22 failed to meet the other selection criteria. Thus, of the original 228 knees, only 13 knees (6%) fulfilled all of the stringent selection requirements and were considered suitable candidates for UKA. With proper patient selection, the number of UKAs performed could become relatively small.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1993        PMID: 8425335

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res        ISSN: 0009-921X            Impact factor:   4.176


  36 in total

1.  Does primary or secondary chondrocalcinosis influence long-term survivorship of unicompartmental arthroplasty?

Authors:  Philippe Hernigou; Walter Pascale; Valerio Pascale; Yasuhiro Homma; Alexandre Poignard
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2011-12-13       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  [The bicompartmental knee joint prosthesis Journey Deuce: failure analysis and optimization strategies].

Authors:  M Müller; G Matziolis; R Falk; H Hommel
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2012-11       Impact factor: 1.087

Review 3.  [Imaging and preoperative planning for osteotomies around the knee].

Authors:  D Pape; A Hoffmann; R Seil
Journal:  Oper Orthop Traumatol       Date:  2017-06-20       Impact factor: 1.154

Review 4.  [Patella position and patellofemoral osteoarthritis after unicompartmental arthroplasty].

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

Review 5.  [Results for endoprosthetic care in patients younger than 50 years].

Authors:  J Ziegler; M Amlang; M Bottesi; S Kirschner; W-C Witzleb; K-P Günther
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 1.087

6.  [Minimally invasive implantation in unicondylar arthroplasty].

Authors:  R Hube; M Keim
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 1.087

7.  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

8.  Sagittal flexion angle of the femoral component in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: is it same for both medial and lateral UKAs?

Authors:  Elcil Kaya Bicer; Elvire Servien; Sebastien Lustig; Guillaume Demey; Tarik Ait Si Selmi; Philippe Neyret
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2010-02-04       Impact factor: 4.342

9.  Knee arthroplasty for spontaneous osteonecrosis of the knee: unicompartimental vs bicompartimental knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  S Radke; N Wollmerstedt; A Bischoff; J Eulert
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2004-09-24       Impact factor: 4.342

10.  Mid-term results and factors affecting outcome of a metal-backed unicompartmental knee design: a case series.

Authors:  Thorsten M Seyler; Michael A Mont; Lawrence P Lai; Jipan Xie; David R Marker; Michael G Zywiel; Peter M Bonutti
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2009-10-26       Impact factor: 2.359

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.