Perceptions of Outcomes After Unicompartmental and Total Knee Replacements

Weale, A. E.; Halabi, O A; Jones, Peter W.; White, Stephen H.

doi:10.1097/00003086-200101000-00021

Cited by 100 publications

(58 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

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%

“…This is encouraging as in the past we have had issues of loosening with the single peg version [5]. It is interesting that other unicompartmental knee manufacturers also provide two peg femoral components, for example the PFC Sigma partial knee (DePuy, Leeds, UK) and the Uniglide unicompartmental meniscal knee replacement (Corin, Cirencester, UK).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 85%

“…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 3 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: 85%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

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

show abstract

“…Recently, a high survivorship, greater than 90% at the 10-year follow-up, has been shown even in patients less than 60 years old [24]. Weale et al (2001) documented a superior functional recovery with a higher performance and better patient satisfaction with UKR compared with TKR [25]. In a cadaveric study, Patil et al demonstrated normal joint biomechanics after a UKR implantation in a knee [15].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Unicompartmental versus computer-assisted total knee replacement for medial compartment knee arthritis: a matched paired study

Manzotti¹,

Confalonieri²,

Pullen

2006

International Orthopaedics (SICOT)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Patients older than 60 with unicompartmental knee arthritis can be treated with total or unicompartmental knee replacement. The aim of this study was to compare the results of matched paired groups of patients with isolated medial compartment knee arthritis replaced with either UKR (group A) or computer-assisted TKR (group B). The results included 68 knees at a minimum follow-up of 3 years. All patients had a varus deformity no greater than 8º and a BMI lower than 30. Patients were matched in terms of preoperative arthritis severity, age, gender and preoperative range of motion. In the computer-assisted TKR group, all the implants were positioned within 4º of the correct hip-knee-ankle angle and frontal tibial component angle. The surgical time and hospital stay were statistically longer in the CA TKR group. During the study no implant required revision. The results showed higher scores for a UKR in the treatment of isolated primary unicompartmental knee arthritis in patients older than 60 compared to a computer-assisted TKR. In this study a computer-assisted alignment system for TKR with optimal implant positioning did not produce equivalent clinical results compared to a UKR, but did increase the financial costs.Résumé Les patients âgés de plus de 60 ans, présentant une arthrose unicompartimentale du genou ont été traités soit par une prothèse totale, soit par une prothèse unicompartimentale. Le but de cette étude est de comparer les résultats de patients présentant une arthrose fémoro tibiale interne traités par une prothèse unicompartimentale (groupe A), ou par prothèse totale du genou mise en place par chirurgie assistée par ordinateur (groupe B). Les résultats incluent 68 genoux avec un suivi minimum de 3 ans. Tous les patients avaient une déformation en varus inferiure à 8 degrés et un BMI inférieur à 30. Les patients ont été comparés en fonction du degré d'arthrose, de l'âge, du sexe et de la mobilité pré opératoire. Dans la série prothèse totale, tous les implants ont été positionnés avec une marge de 4°par rapport à l'angle hanche cheville. Le temps opératoire et la durée d'hospitalisation ont été statistiquement plus importants dans le groupe prothèse totale. Aucun implant n'a nécessité de révision. Les résultats montrent que le score est bien meilleur dans les prothèses unicompartimentales pour le traitement des arthroses unicompartimentales, chez ces patients âgés de plus de 60 ans, comparé au traitement par prothèse totale avec chirurgie assistée par ordinateur. Cette étude montre que la mise en place par chirurgie assistée par ordinateur d'une prothèse totale du genou avec un positionnement optimal des implants peut donner un résultat équivalent à celui des prothèses unicompartimentales mais augmente le coût financier du traitement. IntroductionRecent trends in knee reconstructive surgery have included less invasive surgical approaches along with preserving

show abstract

Total Knee Arthroplasty Following Prior Unicompartmental Replacement

Barrett¹

Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Perceptions of Outcomes After Unicompartmental and Total Knee Replacements

Cited by 100 publications

References 23 publications

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

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

Unicompartmental versus computer-assisted total knee replacement for medial compartment knee arthritis: a matched paired study

Total Knee Arthroplasty Following Prior Unicompartmental Replacement

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About