Analysis of the unicompartmental knee arthroplasty results

Cover Page

Abstract

In 2012-2014 total 67 unicompartmental arthroplasty surgeries with use of Oxford knee meniscal bearing were performed. The surgeries were performed by a single surgeon. Minimally invasive approach was used. All patients were evaluated clinically, radiographically and with Oxford Knee score scale, Knee Society score scale and functional scale. Obtained data was processed with nonparametric Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test. Results were processed using the statistical analysis application package SPSS, version 10.07. Analysis of of mid-term results showed that the average for Oxford Knee score increased from 16.4 (95% CI 9-23) to 41.3 (95% CI 29-47). Average for Knee Society score scale increased from 42.7 (95% CI 31-55) to 88.6 (95% CI 73-100). No occurrence of early postoperative complications have been reported. Statistically significant improvements of knee function in patients after unicompartmental arthroplasty have been observed. Unicompartmental arthroplasty currently can be considered as an advanced treatment option for medial knee joint pathology. Meniscal bearing cemented prostheses such as Oxford III are preferable.

About the authors

S. A. Firsov

Railway Clinical Hospital in Yaroslav Station

Author for correspondence.
Email: serg375@yandex.ru
Russian Federation

V. V. Gagarin

Railway Clinical Hospital in Yaroslav Station

Email: noemail@neicon.ru
Russian Federation

References

  1. Корнилов Н.Н., Куляба Т.А. Артропластика коленного сустава. СПб., 2012. 228 с.
  2. Berger R.A., Nedeff D.D., Barden R.M., Sneinkop M.M., JacobsJ.J., RosenbergA.G., GalanteJ.O. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Clinical experience at 6- to 10-year follow-up. Clin Orthop. 1999; (367):50-60.
  3. Cheng T., Chen D., Zhu C., Pan X., Mao X., Guo Y., Zhang X. Fixed-versus mobile-bearing unicondylar knee arthroplasty: are failure modes different? Knee Surg, Sports Traumatol, Arthroscopy. 2013; 21(11):2433-2441.
  4. Danilidis K., Skwara A., Skuginna A., Ficher F. Comparison of medium-term clinical and radiological outcome between cemented and cementless medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Z Orthop Unfall. 2009; 147(2):188-193.
  5. Furnes O., Espehaug B., Lie S.A., Vollset S.E. Failure mechanisms after unicompartmental and tricompartmental primary knee replacement with cement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007; 89(3):519-525.
  6. Goodfellow J., O’Connor J., Dodd C., Murray D. Unicompartmental arthroplasty with the Oxford knee. Nev York: Oxford University Press, 2006. 194 р.
  7. Godfellow J.W., O’Connor J.J., Murray D.W. A critique of revision rate as an outcome measure: re-interpretation of knee joint registry data. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2010; 92(12):1628-1631.
  8. Hooper G.J., Maxwell A.R., Wilkinson B. et al. The early radiological result of the uncemented Oxford medial compartment knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012; 94(3):334-338.
  9. Kasodekar V.B., Yeo S.J., Othman S. Clinical outcome of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty and influence of alignment on prosthesis survival rate. Singapore Med J. 2006; 47(9):796-802.
  10. Marmor L. Unicompartmental arthroplasty of the knee with a minimum ten-year follow-up period. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1988; (228):171-177.
  11. Murray D.W., Goodfellow J.W., O’Connor J.J. The Oxford medial unicompartmental arthroplasty: a ten-year survival study. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1998; 80: 983-989.
  12. Pandit H., Jenkins C., Beard D.J. et al. Cementless Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement shows reduced radiolucency at one year. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2009; 91(2):185-189.
  13. Pandit H., Jenkins C., Gill H.S., Baker K. Minimally invasive Oxford phase 3 unicompartmental knee replacement: result of 1000 cases. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2011; 93(2):198-204.
  14. Price A.J., Svard U. A second decade lifetable survival analysis of the oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop. 2011; 469(1):174-179.
  15. Ritter M.A., Meneghini R.M. Twenty-year survivoship of cementless anatomic graduated component total knee arthroplasty J Arthroplasty. 2010; 25(4): 3507-3513.
  16. Saenz C.L., McGrath M.S., Marker D.R., Seyler T.M. Early failure of a unicompartmental knee arthroplasty design with an all-polyethylene tibial component. Knee. 2010; 17(1):53-56.
  17. Scott R.D. Mobile-versus fixed-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Instr Course Lect. 2010; 59:57.
  18. Squire M.W., Callagham J.J., Goetz D.D., Sullivan P.M. Unicompartmental knee replacement: a minimum 15 year followup study Clin Orthop. 1999; (367):61-72.
  19. Svard U.C.G., Price A.J. Oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2001; 83:191-194.
  20. Tabor O.B., Tabor Jr. O.B., Bernard M. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: long-term follow-up study. J Arthroplasty. 1998; 13:373-379.
  21. Vorlat P., Putzeys G., Cottenie D. et al. The Oxford unicompartmental knee prosthesis: an independent 10-year survival analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2006; 14:40.
  22. W-Dahl A., Robertsson A., Lidgren O. et al. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in patients aged less than 65. Acta Orthop. 2010; 81:90.

Statistics

Views

Abstract: 228

Dimensions

Article Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

PlumX


Copyright (c) 2015



This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies