Minimally invasive Oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty

Luscombe, Karen L; Lim, Jtk; Jones, Peter W.; White, Stephen H.

doi:10.1007/s00264-006-0202-z

Cited by 50 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This rate is comparable with the results using the single peg cemented implant from the originating centre reported by Pandit [1] and an independent centre reported by Svärd [2,13]. This outcome is better than our previous results using the cemented single peg implant [5,6] and the nine years survival rate of 89% reported in the National Joint Registry of England, Wales and Northern Ireland (NJR) or survival rates from other national joint registers [4,14]. The survival rate was highest when carried out for the patients who satisfied the original recommended indications for the Oxford knee: anteromedial osteoarthritis (AMOA) [8].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

“…The main weakness of this study is the lack of a contemporaneous control group of patients because we stopped using the single peg version in 2003 as a result of our observation of loosening [5,6]. During the last 10 years, as mentioned earlier, we have no doubt gained a better understanding of technical factors during surgery which may well have contributed to improved results.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…The National Joint Registry for England, Wales and Northern Ireland Annual Report of 2013 reports loosening to be the commonest single cause of failure of mobile bearing unicompartmental knee replacements, responsible for 25% of all revisions [4]. Early femoral loosening proved to be an issue in our practice as well, at a rate of three of 31 cases within three years [5] and one of 78 knees by two years [6]. For this reason, we were keen to use a more securely fixed version of the Oxford implant.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The cemented twin-peg Oxford partial knee replacement survivorship: A cohort study

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c t a r t i c l e i n f oBackground: A new twin-peg version of the Oxford knee was introduced in 2003. However, until now there has been no information about its survivorship. The aim of this study was to determine the survivorship, and the patients' perception of outcome over time. Methods: A cohort of all patients treated from 2003 until 2009 using the twin-peg Oxford partial knee was contacted. The main indication for treatment was anteromedial osteoarthritis (AMOA). The Oxford Knee Score (OKS), American Knee Society Functional (AKS-F) score and satisfaction rate were obtained, and the time-tofailure was used to perform a survival analysis. Results: There were 249 patients treated, with 288 medial cemented implants. Of these, 248 patients with 287 implants could be contacted and implant survival or failure was verified. Their mean age was 67 years (range: 34-94). The mean follow-up time was 5.1 years (maximum: 9.2). The nine years cumulative implant survival rate for all cases using revision for any reason to define failure was 98% (95% CI, 84 to 100). There were no cases of femoral loosening. The mean OKS was 22 pre-operatively, 41 at two years, and 41 at final review, at which point 96% of patients were very or fairly pleased with the result. Conclusion: The survivorship of the twin-peg knee was better than that of the single peg knee at our centre, and appeared no worse than the results of the single peg knee at the originating centre. It can offer secure femoral fixation, sustained clinical benefit and patient satisfaction. Level of evidence: Level IV case-series.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The cemented twin-peg Oxford partial knee replacement survivorship: A cohort study

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, this finding applies only to deviations reported in our patient population after a relatively short follow-up period of four to seven years. In the long term, deviant implant positions (i.e., if impingement occurs) may lead to increased polyethylene wear and may result in implant failure [6,15,27,28,32,33]. Therefore, long-term studies are necessary to define evidence-based tolerance limits for implant positions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Correlation of positioning and clinical results in Oxford UKA

Clarius

Hauck

Seeger

et al. 2009

International Orthopaedics (SICOT)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a prospective clinical study, 59 patients with anteromedial osteoarthritis of the knee (61 knee joints) underwent minimally invasive medial Oxford unicompartmental arthroplasty phase 3. Clinical and radiographic examinations of 56 knees were carried out at five (4-7) years. American Knee Society (AKS) scores improved from mean 45.5 (20-80) points (knee score) and 55 (15-100) points (function score) before surgery to 90 (30-100) points in both scores after surgery. The position of each implant was determined on screened radiographs using an image intensifier. The implant position was analysed according to the Oxford X-ray rating system. We evaluated nine measures, and there was no detectable correlation between implant position and clinical result. However, long-term studies are needed before it is possible to elaborate an evidence-based guideline on positioning.

show abstract

“…Several studies have reported that UKA is a viable option for the treatment of unicompartmental osteoarthritis and some authors have also even reported excellent outcomes, focusing attention on careful patient selection and correct indications [1,3,9,17,20,26]. Advantages of UKA compared to total knee arthroplasty (TKA) are cost-effectiveness, fewer serious complications [21,24] and better postoperative functional outcome [9,27].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%