Reprise de prothèse unicompartimentale fémorotibiale par prothèse totale du genou

Chatain, F.; Richard, A; Deschamps, G.; Chambat, Pierre; Neyret, P

doi:10.1016/s0035-1040(04)70006-9

Cited by 30 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Châtain F. included 54 French patients and analyzed technical difficulties in revision TKAs in patients with unicompartmental femorotibial prostheses and concluded that tibial bone loss is more frequent; however, the correction of femoral bone loss is more challenging [ 20 ]. Moreover, in our study, femoral AORI grades were all 1; therefore, the correction of femoral bone loss was not required.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical outcomes of various types of revision surgeries after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty failure

Peng

Chen

Lee

et al. 2023

BMC Musculoskelet Disord

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The advantages of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) have led to the procedure being increasingly performed worldwide. However, revision surgery is required after UKA failure. According to the literature review, the choice of implant in revision surgery remains a debatable concern. This study analyzed the clinical results of different types of prostheses used in treating failed UKA. Materials and methods This is a retrospective review of 33 failed medial UKAs between 2006 and 2017. Demographic data, failure reason, types of revision prostheses, and the severity of bone defects were analyzed. The patients were classified into three groups: primary prosthesis, primary prosthesis with a tibial stem, and revision prosthesis. The implant survival rate and medical cost of the procedures were compared. Results A total of 17 primary prostheses, 7 primary prostheses with tibial stems, and 9 revision prostheses were used. After a mean follow-up of 30.8 months, the survival outcomes of the three groups were 88.2%, 100%, and 88.9%, respectively (P = 0.640). The common bone defect in tibia site is Anderson Orthopedic Research Institute [AORI] grade 1 and 2a (16 versus 17). In patients with tibial bone defects AORI grade 2a, the failure rates of primary prostheses and primary prostheses with tibial stems were 25% and 0%, respectively. Conclusions The most common cause for UKA failure was aseptic loosening. The adoption of a standardized surgical technique makes it easier to perform revision surgeries. Primary prostheses with tibial stems provided higher stability, leading to a lower failure rate due to less risk of aseptic loosening in patients with tibial AORI grade 2a. In our experience, we advise surgeons may try using primary prostheses in patients with tibial AORI grade 1 and primary prostheses with tibial stems in patients with tibial AORI grade 2a.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical outcomes of various types of revision surgeries after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty failure

Peng

Chen

Lee

et al. 2023

BMC Musculoskelet Disord

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Des critères de sélection stricts concernant l'atteinte arthrosique préopératoire, qui doit être strictement unicompartimentale, la contre-indication formelle en cas de polyarthrite (bien que la PUC médiale implantée chez la patiente atteinte de polyarthrite rhumatoïde ait un bon résultat radio clinique à trois ans de recul), associés à la recherche systématique d'une hypocorrection modérée nous ont permis d'éviter le plus souvent cette complication. Les cinq cas que nous avons rencontrés s'expliquaient tous par une hypercorrection postopératoire, et nous préférons depuis quelques années reprendre ces PUC en réalisant une PUC sur le compartiment non prothésé plutôt que de réaliser une PTG, jamais aisée après une PUC [33]. La PTG ne serait envisagée que lorsqu'un mauvais positionnement patent ou une usure de l'insert précédemment implanté est constatée.…”

Section: Complicationsunclassified

Prothèses unicompartimentales du genou avec plateau tibial tout polyéthylène cimenté : à propos de 144 cas à cinq ans de recul moyen

Lustig

Paillot

Servien

et al. 2009

Revue de Chirurgie Orthopédique et Traumatologique

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Châtain et al [7] berichteten über 54 Revisionen von unikondylären Schlittenprothesen nach einer durchschnittlichen "Standzeit" von 4 Jahren.…”

Section: Vorbemerkungenunclassified

“…Châtain et al [7] reported on 54 revisions of unicondylar partial joint replacements after an average "implantation time" of 4 years.…”

Section: Introductory Remarksmentioning

confidence: 99%

Die minimalinvasive Implantation eines unikondylären Kniesystems

Buckup

2006

Orthop Traumatol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

28 Accuris unicondylar knee systems were implanted medially in 26 patients (14 women, twelve men) in minimally invasive technique from March 2003 to July 2004. One patient was not included in the evaluation because the operation was changed to a bicondylar surface replacement due to a deep-seated infection. The patients' average age at the time of the operation was 73.8 years. On average, the operation scar was 8.2 cm long. The average quantity of secretion in the Redon drain was 155 ml. The hemoglobin value fell from 13.3 to 12.3 g/dl. The total HSS (Hospital for Special Surgery) Score increased significantly from 55.5 (34-75) to 87.4 (71-95) points. In the follow-up examination, 21 unicondylar knee systems (77.8%) were evaluated as excellent and six (22.2%) as good.

show abstract

Reprise de prothèse unicompartimentale fémorotibiale par prothèse totale du genou

Cited by 30 publications

References 14 publications

Clinical outcomes of various types of revision surgeries after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty failure

Clinical outcomes of various types of revision surgeries after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty failure

Prothèses unicompartimentales du genou avec plateau tibial tout polyéthylène cimenté : à propos de 144 cas à cinq ans de recul moyen

Die minimalinvasive Implantation eines unikondylären Kniesystems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About