The St Georg sledge for unicompartmental replacement of the knee. A prospective study of 115 cases

Mackinnon, J.; Young, Simon; Baily, R. A. J.

doi:10.1302/0301-620x.70b2.3346291

Cited by 61 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The rate of survival of implants in medial unicompartmental knee replacements is comparable to other reports of both fixed and mobile bearing designs [1,2,5,7,14,18,22,23,26,27] (Table 1). Recent series with a large number of patients have reported higher revision rates for medial unicompartmental replacements [6], but once technical errors and surgeon-related complications were discounted good survival rates were reported [17].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

“…The use of Bristol knee scores in the assessment of unicompartmental knee replacements has not been validated, although it has been used by previous investigators [14]. The discrepancies between the total score and the function score would account for variations in patients due to comorbidities even in the presence of good knee function.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…They were assessed both clinically and radiologically. The clinical assessment was done using the Bristol knee score [14]. The Bristol knee score has a functional component as part of the total knee score.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Unicompartmental knee replacements with Miller-Galante prosthesis: Two to 16-year follow-up of a single surgeon series

John

Mauffrey

May

2010

International Orthopaedics (SICOT)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We report the outcome of 94 Miller-Galante unicompartmental knee replacements done by a single surgeon over 16 years in a district general hospital in the UK. Patellofemoral arthritis was considered a contraindication only if symptomatic and confirmed on radiography and surgery. Deformity when present was correctable. The mean age at surgery was 66.54 years. The mean followup was 10.8 years (2-16 years). The mean Bristol knee score was 43.1 (28-50); 86% of the patients had good or excellent scores. The average range of flexion was 110.6°( 80-130°); 89% of the knees had an appropriate alignment. Using revision as the endpoint, outcome for every knee was established. The survival rate for medial unicompartmental knee replacements was 94% at ten years and 87% at 15 years. Although the survival rate for the lateral unicompartmental knee replacement was 97% at five years, it dropped to 41% at eight years. Lateral unicompartmental knee replacements formed only 9.6% of all the replacements in this series. The results for medial unicompartmental knee replacements are similar to reports by other authors for similar and mobile bearing designs. Unicompartmental knee replacement results in a more kinematic knee and produces good functional results.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Unicompartmental knee replacements with Miller-Galante prosthesis: Two to 16-year follow-up of a single surgeon series

John

Mauffrey

May

2010

International Orthopaedics (SICOT)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Recurrence of pain as bad as or more severe than before surgery often precedes revision itself. In some cases, revision may not be indicated at the time of follow-up and in others it cannot be undertaken due to lack of resources or the patient's fitness to undergo revision surgery, but pain has rarely been included in the criteria of failure for survival assessment (Mackinnon et al 1988, Ritter et al 1989.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

St. Georg sledge for medial compartment knee replacement: 461 arthroplasties followed for 4 (1-17) years

Ansari¹,

Newman²,

Ackroyd³

1997

Acta Orthopaedica Scandinavica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…[1][2][3][4] Purchasers, providers and patients all require accurate information on the likely benefits of alternative procedures, in order to make an informed choice. 5 Many instruments have been developed for the assessment of knee pain and function, such as the American Knee Society Score, 6 the Bristol Knee Score, 7 and the Hospital for Special Surgery Knee Score. 8 They are derived from clinical and radiological data and depend on the judgement of the surgeon.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Specificity of the Oxford knee status questionnaire

Harcourt

White

Jones

2001

The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. British volume

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is a need for the accurate measurement of the outcome after knee surgery. The Oxford Knee Score is being increasingly used since it is reported to be short, simple, inexpensive and validated.We sent the questionnaire to 346 patients awaiting surgery to the hip or lumbar spine. Only 11% of 141 patients with proximal pathology who denied knee problems gave a maximum score. Their mean score was substantially lower than expected at 28.7 (maximum 48), and was significantly lower than the score of 36.5 obtained from patients after total knee replacement.We therefore suggest that the frequent coexistence of hip or spinal pathology will significantly alter both the absolute score and any improvement to be expected after knee surgery. Although sensitive to disability originating from the knee the Oxford Knee Score is not sufficiently specific since it is heavily influenced by more proximal pathology.

show abstract

The St Georg sledge for unicompartmental replacement of the knee. A prospective study of 115 cases

Cited by 61 publications

References 0 publications

Unicompartmental knee replacements with Miller-Galante prosthesis: Two to 16-year follow-up of a single surgeon series

Unicompartmental knee replacements with Miller-Galante prosthesis: Two to 16-year follow-up of a single surgeon series

St. Georg sledge for medial compartment knee replacement: 461 arthroplasties followed for 4 (1-17) years

Specificity of the Oxford knee status questionnaire

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About